166 Peter Dubovsk´ y governor of the Damascus province (Summ. 4:7’-8’; 9:3-4) (40). This province included Transjordan, in particular Gilead, and the territory down to Abel-Shittim. Thus, Transjordan did not revert to Israel. After the defeat of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition Transjordan fell under the direct control of a new Damascene province (41). In Israel Pekah was succeeded by a pro-Assyrian king Hoshea (Summ. 4:17’; 9:10; 13:18’) (42). Tiglath-pileser III turned the former Samarian kingdom into a new geopolitical district called Bit-Humri in Summ. 4:6’. This new geopolitical entity was limited to Samaria and its immediate vicinity west of the Jordan and south of Jezreel (43). It seems that Tiglath-pileser III resumed the usage of the old name for the hilly territory of Israel as used by his predecessor Shalmaneser III, according to the black obelisk. It is possible that from the Assyrian point of view the territory called Bit-Humri included not only what remained of the Israelite kingdom but also of the Judah since both Israelite and Judahite kings became Assyrian vassals (44). Moreover, a review of the archaeological records from Gezer demonstrates that at the end of the 8th and during the 7th century B.C. Gezer became an Assyrian administrative center (45). This archaeological evidence suggests that after Tiglath-pileser III’s conquest of Gezer the city came under direct Assyrian control. Ahaz’s visit to Damascus (2 Kgs 16,10) suggests that Judah after having paid heavy tribute continued its vassalage and maintained its partial independence. This idea is also confirmed by 2 Chr 28,20: /qz:j} aløw“. Since the verb qzj is in qal, the translation should be: “he (Tiglath-pileser III) did not overpower him (Ahaz)”, because Ahaz (40) Who succeeded Rezin in Damascus is not mentioned in the Bible; however, the Bible does not exclude the possibility that Aram lost its independence and was turned into an Assyrian province. (41) B.E. KELLE, “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation”, JBL 121 (2002) 660. (42) According to the biblical sources Pekah was assassinated by Hoshea who became king instead of Pekah (2 Kgs 15,30). Even though there is no biblical evidence that Tiglath-pileser III was somehow responsible for the change of the kings in Samaria, it is quite possible that the winning party — the Assyrians — had to confirm the new king Hoshea. Thus Israel returned to the status of vassalage as was the case in the times of Menahem. (43) KELLE, “What’s in a Name?”, 660. (44) Ibid., 660-61. (45) R. REICH – B. BRANDL, “Gezer under Assyrian Rule”, PEQ 117 (1985) 41-54.