Tiglath-pileser III 42

1[...]-qi: Perhaps [... KUR.ia-ra]-qi (“[... Mount Yara]qu”) as suggested by N. Naʾaman (WO 9 [1977–78] p. 232 n. 35); see Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 136. KUR.sa-ú-[e] “Mount Sau[e]”: G. Smith’s draft reads KUR.sa-ú-e; 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 has KUR.sa-ú-[a]. With regard to the place names in lines 1´–5´, a similar list is given in text no. 13 line 5.

2[URU.ma]-ʾa-ra-ba-a “[the city Ma]ʾarabâ”: The restoration was suggested by N. Naʾaman (WO 9 [1977–78] p. 230). URU.ri-ʾi-si-ṣu-[ri] “the city Riʾisi-ṣū[ri]”: G. Smith’s draft and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 both have -ṣu-[ú]; cf. URU.SAG-ṣur-ri in text no. 35 ii 12´ and URU.ri-ʾi-si-ṣu-⸢ri⸣ in text no. 43 ii 19. For further information about this place name, see Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 138.

3[É ka]-ri “[empor]ium(s)”: The restoration was suggested by Tadmor in Tigl. III (p. 136, note to line 4´); see text no. 35 ii 13´.

4e*-: The text has šap-. With regard to the restoration of damaged text in lines 5´–7´, see text no. 49 rev. 1–4 and text no. 50 rev. 1–4.

5For the beginning of the line, N. Naʾaman (ZDPV 111 [1995] p. 105) restores [a-di URU.mi]-⸢ni⸣-te “[as far as the city Mi]nite.” [URU].a-bi-il-šiṭ-⸢ṭi⸣ “[the city] Abil-šiṭṭi”: So according to G. Smith’s draft. For further details, see Tadmor, Tigl. III p. 139.

6si-[ḫir-ti-šú] “[its] en[tirety]”: So 3 R pl. 10 no. 2; G. Smith’s draft copy of 3 R and his copy of frgm. a both have NU-[...].

7The restorations of the Ḫanūnu episode are based on text no. 48 lines 14´–18´ and text no. 49 rev. 13–16. A score of this episode is provided in Tadmor, Tigl. III pp. 222–223 (Excursus 4).

8URU LUGAL-ti-šú ak-šud (“I conquered his royal city”), áš-lu-la (“I carried off”): The restorations are based on context. ALAM^* “image”: The text has NÁ. The first part of the ALAM sign has been omitted either by the scribe or by G. Smith, who interpreted this sign as “couch” (Assyrian Disc. p. 284 line 10).

9ul-ziz “I erected (it)”: The restoration is based on context.

10sat-tuk-ki-šú-nu “their sattukku offerings”: The restoration is based on context and follows a suggestion by N. Naʾaman (UF 31 [1999] p. 401). na-mur-rat^? aš-šur^? EN-ia^? “the terrifying splendor of (the god) Aššur, my lord”: The restoration is based on text no. 49 rev. 24, at the suggestion of J. Novotny. -⸢ḫup⸣-: So the copy of frgms. f and b; G. Smith’s draft and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 are erroneous. -⸢šu⸣-: So the copy of frgm. b; the copy of frgm. f, Smith’s draft, and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 all erroneously have na.

11[am]-ḫur “[I re]ceived”: So G. Smith’s copy of frgm. f and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2; Smith’s draft has am-ḫur.

12⸢pu⸣-ḫur “all of”: So G. Smith’s copy of frgm. f; 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 has [pu]-ḫur; and Smith’s draft has pu-ḫur.

13[x]-du-x-x- “[I/they] killed”: So the copy of frgm. d; in G. Smith’s draft and in 3 R pl. 10 no. 2, the first unidentified sign following DU is completely missing and the space between -⸢nu⸣ and -du- is wide enough for only one sign. One might restore [i]-du-⸢ku(-ú)⸣-ma (“[They] killed”) or [a]-du-⸢uk⸣-ma (“I” killed); but in G. Smith’s draft, there is sufficient space to restore at least two signs between -du- and -ma, and the copied traces do not fit perfectly the proposed readings. N. Naʾaman (Tel Aviv 22/2 [1995] p. 274) suggests reading this passage as DU (illik) ⸢nam-mu⸣-[ši]-šu “he died,” but the traces on Smith’s draft do not support Naʾaman’s proposed reading. According to II Kings 15:25, Peqah was assassinated by Hoshea.

14x x: G. Smith’s copy of frgm. d has 2 LIM (“2,000”), while his draft has 2 ME (“200”) and his copy in 3 R has 1 LIM (“1,000”). [a-di mar-ši]-ti-šú-nu “[together with] their [proper]ty”: N. Naʾaman (Tel Aviv 22/2 [1995] p. 275) suggests [ta-mar]-ti-šú-nu (“their [audience-gi]ft”), but this is grammatically problematic since one expects tāmartašunu.

15-bi: G. Smith’s copy of frgm. e has -bi^? with -bu copied over it; Smith’s draft has -bi; and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 erroneously has -bu. ⸢ina KUR⸣: So Smith’s draft. ⸢KUR-i⸣ “Mount”: G. Smith’s draft and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 have ⸢bu-áš⸣, which appears to be a mistake. With regard to lines 19´–34´, the damaged text of the Samsi episode is restored from text no. 44 lines 3´–16´, text no. 48 lines 24´–27´, text no. 49 rev. 17–22, as well as text no. 47 rev. 1´–6´. A score of this episode is provided in Tadmor, Tigl. III pp. 225–228 (Excursus 5).

16DÙ-ma “all types”: So G. Smith’s copy of frgm. d; 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 has DÙ-a-ma. x: Smith’s copy of frgm. d has DA or RA; Smith’s draft and 3 R pl. 10 no. 2 both have DU. -ti: So 3 R pl. 10 no. 2; Smith’s copy of frgm. e and Smith’s draft are erroneous.

17<<KI>>: So G. Smith’s copy of frgm. d; the sign is hatched in 3 R pl. 10 no. 2. Perhaps the sign should be emended to ši.

18-⸢ri⸣: So G. Smith’s copy of frgm. d; the sign is miscopied in Smith’s draft and in 3 R pl. 10 no. 2.

19ḫu-ra-da-at UN.MEŠ-šá “her people’s safeguard”: Here ḫurādu (“watchman”) is taken metaphorically, referring to Samsi’s encampment (cf. Luckenbill, Senn. p. 58 line 23). One may alternatively take the word as the homonym ḫurādu,“reed mat” (thus referring to the nomads’ sleeping mats), although this word is presently attested only once, in a commentary to a botanical list (CAD Ḫ p. 245).

20The restoration is conjectural; see text no. 49 rev. 22.

21iš-mu-ma^? ú-ṣal-lu-ú^? “they heard and beseeched”: The restoration is conjectural.

22ú-bi-lu-nim-ma^? “they brought”: The restoration is conjectural.

23[GIŠ.TUKUL^? aš]-šur “[the weapon of (the god) Aš]šur”: The restoration is conjectural.

24ina^? KUR.KUR^? DÙ-ši-na^? ša^? “in all of the lands that”: The restoration is conjectural.