How it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria was called Pûlu is not known. The name only occurs, in native documents, in the Babylonian Canon of kings—to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was copied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name officially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it was his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler of the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for the Assyrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, _bûlu_ (which may also be read _pûlu_) meaning “the wild animal.” It occurs, however, as a personal name in the inscriptions of Assyria at least twice, the bearer of it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of “the Ḫuḫamite.” The fact that the name Pûlu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian document, suggests that the reference to the Assyrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26 are due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is at first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a confirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory attached to the name Tiglath-pileser in Assyrian history probably accounts for his having ultimately adopted the latter. “On the 25th day of Tebet Šulmanu-ašarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne in Assyria. He destroyed Šabara’in.” (Babylonian Chronicle.) “In the eponymy of Bêl-ḫarran-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Gozan, To the city ... Šalmanu-ašarid sat upon the throne. In the eponymy of Marduk-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Amedi, In the land. In the eponymy of Maḫdê, of the city of Nineveh, To.... In the eponymy of Aššur-ḫalṣani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To.... In the eponymy of Šalmanu-ašarid, king of Assyria, To....” (Eponym Canon with historical notices.) These two extracts give practically all that is known of the important reign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the Babylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the amount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is, however, it is probably of as much value historically as the Assyrian Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from that without historical notices. The completion of this important document from additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished. It is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the fullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have been found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very extensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind existed is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at least one document, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.