Pu-Sarruma 'Hišmi-Šarruma', King of Pre-Empire of Hittites

• Preferred Name: Pu-Sarruma 'Hišmi-Šarruma', King of Pre-Empire of Hittites^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]}
  
• Alternate Name: aka Pu-Sharruma of the HATTI
  
• Gender: M
  
• FSID: GXLC-G75
  
• http://familysearch.org/v1/TitleOfNobility: King of the Hittites
  
• http://familysearch.org/v1/TitleOfNobility: He was a conjectured pre-Empire king of the Hittites. The conjecture was forwarded by Emil Forrer and is not commonly accepted. His sons turned against him, so while he was in the city of Šanahwitta, he named his son-in-law Labarna as his successor.He would have reigned around 1600 BC (short chronology). with note: Wikiwand: PU-Sarruma
  
• Death: Y
  
• Notes:

  === Life Sketch ===
  PU-Sarruma (PU-LUGAL-ma, mPU-Šàr-(rù)-ma, possibly representing Hišmi-Šarruma) is a conjectured pre-Empire king of the Hittites. The conjecture was forwarded by Emil Forrer and is not commonly accepted.
  He would have reigned around 1700 BC (short chronology).
  
  Hišmi-Šarruma would correspond to the grandfather of Hattusili I and the father-in-law of Labarna I and true father of Papahdilmah, mentioned (but not by name) by Hattusili. Hišmi-Šarruma was also a father of Tawannanna.
  
  Virtually nothing is known of PU-Šarruma's life, who is a very shadowy figure. PU-Šarruma's sons had turned against their father, so that, while he was in the city of Šanahwitta, he named his son-in-law Labarna as his successor. However, Papahdilmah still had support among the king's servants and chief officers.

1. Kohath Kohoth Ben Pu-Sarruma,    
2. Tawananna bat Pu-Sarruma, Queen of the Hittites,    
3. Papahdilmah ap Pu-Sarruma, Prince of the Hittites,    

1. Title: Wikiwand: Labarna I
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Labarna_I;
   Note: Labarna I was the traditional first king of the Hittites, c. early 16th century BC (short chronology). He was the traditional founder of the Hittite Old Kingdom (fl. c. 1600 – 1450 BC). His wife was Tawannanna. The existence of Labarna I is questioned by some modern scholars. "Labarna" was also a title of early Hittite rulers, such as Hattusili I. Given the relatively few contemporaneous references to Labarna I personally, some scholars have suggested that pioneering Hittitologists may have erred in assuming that Labarna was the personal name of a king. According to this theory, the first Labarna (in the sense of a title) was Hattusili I, who is normally regarded as the second "Labarna." "Tabarna," a variant of Labarna, often is mentioned in Hattian, Hittite, Hurrian and Akkadian texts from the Hittite archives. Biography Labarna was not the first in line to the throne. PU-Sarruma designated Labarna as his successor after his own sons revolted against him. Upon PU-Sarruma's death, Labarna and Papahdilmah, one of PU-Sarruma's sons, contended for the throne, with Labarna emerging victorious. What little is known about him is culled mainly from the Telepinu Proclamation, which states that he overwhelmed his enemies and "made them borders of the sea," a statement which may refer to conquests as far as the Mediterranean coast in the south, and the Black Sea in the north. Labarna installed his sons as governors in several cities including Tuwanuwa, Hupisna, Landa, and Lusna (the identities of these cities are uncertain, but thought to perhaps be Tyana, Heraclea Cybistra, Laranda, and Lystra). Through his conquests, he was responsible for laying the groundwork for the Hittite empire that was to come.
   
2. Title: Wikiwand: PU-Sarruma
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "For a god, see Sarruma."
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/PU-Sarruma;
   Note: PU-Sarruma (PU-LUGAL-ma, mPU-"Šàr-(rù)-ma," possibly representing "Hišmi-Šarruma") is a conjectured pre-Empire king of the Hittites. The conjecture was forwarded by Emil Forrer and is not commonly accepted. He would have reigned around 1600 BC (short chronology). Family Hišmi-Šarruma would correspond to the grandfather of Hattusili I and the father-in-law of Labarna I and true father of Papahdilmah, mentioned (but not by name) by Hattusili. Hišmi-Šarruma was also a father of Tawannanna. Virtually nothing is known of PU-Šarruma's life, who is a very shadowy figure. PU-Šarruma's sons had turned against their father, so that, while he was in the city of Šanahwitta, he named his son-in-law Labarna as his successor. However, Papahdilmah still had support among the king's servants and chief officers.
   
3. Title: Wikiwand: List of Hittite kings
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Hittite_kings;
   Note: The dating and sequence of the Hittite kings is compiled from fragmentary records, supplemented by the recent find in Hattusa of a cache of more than 3500 seal impressions giving names and titles and genealogy of Hittite kings. All dates given here are approximate, relying on synchronisms with known chronologies for neighboring countries and Egypt. Little is known of the rulers of the Middle Kingdom period. The sequence here still largely follows Bryce (1998), but the short (or low) chronology is used. McMahon (1989) lists Hattusili II and Tudhaliya III in inverse order. Bryce, among others, does not distinguish a Middle Kingdom. Instead he ends the Old Kingdom with Muwatalli I and begins the New Kingdom with Tudhaliya I. Nor is Tudhaliya "the Younger" generally included in Hittite king lists, as he was assassinated upon the death of his father, Tudhaliya II. Hattic Further information: Hattians Ruler Reigned Lineage and Key events Pamba ca. early 22nd century BC (short) King of Hatti Pithana ca. 17th century BC (short) King of Kussara, conqueror of Neša Piyusti ca. 17th century BC (short) King of Hatti, defeated by Anitta Anitta ca. 17th century BC (short) King of Kussara, destroyer of Hattusa (Tudhaliya) Great-grandfather of Hattusili I (PU-Sarruma) Son of Tudhaliya Old Kingdom Ruler Reigned Lineage and key events Labarna I Traditional founder of the Old Kingdom; existence questioned by some scholars Hattusili I a.k.a. Labarna II ca. 1586–1556 BC (short) Nephew/grandson(?) of Labarna; perhaps the first ruler to reoccupy Hattusa Mursili I ca. 1556–1526 BC (short) Grandson of Hattusili I; sacked Babylon, ca. 1531 Hantili I ca. 1526–1496 BC (short) Brother-in-law of Mursili I; assassinated Mursili I Zidanta I ca. 1496–1486 BC (short) Son-in-law of Hantili I; assassinated son/heir of Hantili I Ammuna ca. 1486–1466 BC (short) Son of Zidanta I; assassinated his father Huzziya I ca. 1466–1461 BC (short) Son of Ammuna? Telipinus ca. 1460 BC (short) Brother-in-law of Huzziya I; usurped the throne from Huzziya Middle Kingdom Ruler Reigned Lineage and key events Alluwamna ca. mid 15th century BC Son-in-law of Telipinus Hantili II ca. 1500-1450 B.C. Son of Alluwamna Tahurwaili Usurper. Ruled sometime between Telipinu and Zidanta II, but otherwise time is uncertain. Zidanta II Son of Hantili II Huzziya II Son of Zidanta II Muwatalli I ca. 1400 BC Usurper; assassinated Huzziya II New Kingdom (Empire) Ruler Reigned Lineage and key events Tudhaliya I ca. early 14th century BC (short) Lineage is uncertain; perhaps a grandson of Zidanta II. Became king after Muwatalli I was killed. Arnuwanda I Son-in-law of Tudhaliya I Hattusili II (?) The existence, lineage and time of his reign is disputed Tudhaliya II ca. 1360? – 1344 BC (short) Son of Arnuwanda (or Hattusili II?) Tudhaliya III "the Younger" Son of Tudhaliya II; assassinated upon his father's death; he may not have ruled at all. Suppiluliuma I ca. 1344–1322 BC (short) Son of Tudhaliya II (or Hattusili II?); expanded the empire; mentioned in the Amarna letters Arnuwanda II ca. 1322–1321 BC (short) Son of Suppiluliuma Mursili II ca. 1321–1295 BC (short) Son of Suppiluliuma Muwatalli II ca. 1295–1272 BC (short) Son of Mursili II; Battle of Kadesh, ca. 1274 Mursili III a.k.a. Urhi-Teshub ca. 1272–1267 BC (short) Son of Muwatalli II Hattusili III ca. 1267–1237 BC (short) Son of Mursili II; treaty with Egypt ca. 1258 Tudhaliya IV ca. 1237–1209 BC (short) Son of Hattusili III; Battle of Nihriya Kurunta ca. 1228–1227 BC (short) Son of Muwatalli II; his reign is uncertain; may have ruled for a very brief time in the middle of Tudhaliya's reign. Arnuwanda III ca. 1209–1207 BC (short) Son of Tudhaliya IV Suppiluliuma II ca. 1207–1178 BC (short) Son of Tudhaliya IV; fall of Hattusa, ca. 1178
   
4. Title: Wikiwand: Hittites
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hittites;
   Note: The Hittites (/ˈhɪtaɪts/) were an Anatolian people who played an important role in establishing an empire centered on Hattusa in north-central Anatolia around 1600 BC. This empire reached its height during the mid-14th century BC under Suppiluliuma I, when it encompassed an area that included most of Anatolia as well as parts of the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia. Between the 15th and 13th centuries BC, the Empire of Hattusa, conventionally called the Hittite Empire, came into conflict with the Egyptian Empire, Middle Assyrian Empire and the empire of the Mitanni for control of the Near East. The Assyrians eventually emerged as the dominant power and annexed much of the Hittite empire, while the remainder was sacked by Phrygian newcomers to the region. After c. 1180 BC, during the Bronze Age collapse, the Hittites splintered into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until the 8th century BC before succumbing to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The Hittite language was a distinct member of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European language family, and along with the related Luwian language, is the oldest historically attested Indo-European language, referred to by its speakers as "nešili" "in the language of Nesa." The Hittites called their country the "Kingdom of Hattusa" (Hatti in Akkadian), a name received from the Hattians, an earlier people who inhabited the region until the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and spoke an unrelated language known as Hattic. The conventional name "Hittites" is due to their initial identification with the Biblical Hittites in 19th century archaeology. The history of the Hittite civilization is known mostly from cuneiform texts found in the area of their kingdom, and from diplomatic and commercial correspondence found in various archives in Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt and the Middle East, the decipherment of which was also a key event in the history of Indo-European linguistics. The Hittite military made successful use of chariots. The development of iron smelting once was attributed to the Hittites of Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, with their success largely based on the advantages of a monopoly on ironworking at the time. But the view of such a "Hittite monopoly" has come under scrutiny and is no longer a scholarly consensus. As part of the Late-Bronze-Age/Early-Iron-Age, the Bronze Age collapse saw the slow, comparatively continuous spread of iron-working technology in the region. While there are some iron objects from Bronze Age Anatolia, the number is comparable to iron objects found in Egypt and other places during the period; and only a small number of these objects are weapons. Hittites did not use smelted iron, but rather meteorites. In classical times, ethnic Hittite dynasties survived in small kingdoms scattered around modern Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Lacking a unifying continuity, their descendants scattered and ultimately merged into the modern populations of the Levant, Turkey and Mesopotamia. During the 1920s, interest in the Hittites increased with the founding of the modern Republic of Turkey and attracted the attention of Turkish archaeologists such as Halet Çambel and Tahsin Özgüç. During this period, the new field of Hittitology also influenced the naming of Turkish institutions, such as the state-owned "Etibank" ("Hittite bank"), and the foundation of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, 200 kilometers west of the Hittite capital and housing the most comprehensive exhibition of Hittite art and artifacts in the world. Archaeological discovery Biblical background See also: Biblical Hittites Before the archeological discoveries that revealed the Hittite civilization, the only source of information about the Hittites had been the Old Testament. Francis William Newman expressed the critical view, common in the early 19th century, that, "no Hittite king could have compared in power to the King of Judah...". As the discoveries in the second half of the 19th century revealed the scale of the Hittite kingdom, Archibald Sayce asserted that, rather than being compared to Judah, the Anatolian civilization "[was] worthy of comparison to the divided Kingdom of Egypt," and was "infinitely more powerful than that of Judah." Sayce and other scholars also noted that Judah and the Hittites were never enemies in the Hebrew texts; in the Book of Kings, they supplied the Israelites with cedar, chariots, and horses, and in the Book of Genesis were friends and allies to Abraham. Uriah the Hittite was a captain in King David's army and counted as one of his "mighty men" in 1 Chronicles 11. Initial discoveries French scholar Charles Texier found the first Hittite ruins in 1834 but did not identify them as such. The first archaeological evidence for the Hittites appeared in tablets found at the "karum" of Kanesh (now called Kültepe), containing records of trade between Assyrian merchants and a certain "land of 'Hatti.'" Some names in the tablets were neither Hattic nor Assyrian, but clearly Indo-European. The script on a monument at Boğazkale by a "People of Hattusas" discovered by William Wright in 1884 was found to match peculiar hieroglyphic scripts from Aleppo and Hama in Northern Syria. In 1887, excavations at Amarna in Egypt uncovered the diplomatic correspondence of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his son, Akhenaten. Two of the letters from a "kingdom of 'Kheta'"—apparently located in the same general region as the Mesopotamian references to "land of 'Hatti'"—were written in standard Akkadian cuneiform, but in an unknown language; although scholars could interpret its sounds, no one could understand it. Shortly after this, Sayce proposed that "Hatti" or "Khatti" in Anatolia was identical with the "kingdom of 'Kheta'" mentioned in these Egyptian texts, as well as with the biblical Hittites. Others, such as Max Müller, agreed that "Khatti" was probably "Kheta," but proposed connecting it with Biblical Kittim rather than with the Biblical Hittites. Sayce's identification came to be widely accepted over the course of the early 20th century; and the name "Hittite" has become attached to the civilization uncovered at Boğazköy. During sporadic excavations at Boğazköy (Hattusa) that began in 1906, the archaeologist Hugo Winckler found a royal archive with 10,000 tablets, inscribed in cuneiform Akkadian and the same unknown language as the Egyptian letters from Kheta—thus confirming the identity of the two names. He also proved that the ruins at Boğazköy were the remains of the capital of an empire that, at one point, controlled northern Syria. Under the direction of the German Archaeological Institute, excavations at Hattusa have been under way since 1907, with interruptions during the world wars. Kültepe was successfully excavated by Professor Tahsin Özgüç from 1948 until his death in 2005. Smaller scale excavations have also been carried out in the immediate surroundings of Hattusa, including the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, which contains numerous rock reliefs portraying the Hittite rulers and the gods of the Hittite pantheon. Writings The Hittites used a variation of cuneiform called Hittite cuneiform. Archaeological expeditions to Hattusa have discovered entire sets of royal archives on cuneiform tablets, written either in Akkadian, the diplomatic language of the time, or in the various dialects of the Hittite confederation. Museums The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, Turkey houses the richest collection of Hittite and Anatolian artifacts. Geography Main article: Hittite sites The Hittite kingdom was centered on the lands surrounding Hattusa and Neša (Kültepe), known as "the land Hatti" (URUHa-at-ti). After Hattusa was made capital, the area encompassed by the bend of the Kızılırmak River (Hittite "Marassantiya") was considered the core of the Empire, and some Hittite laws make a distinction between "this side of the river" and "that side of the river." For example, the reward for the capture of an escaped slave after he managed to flee beyond the Halys is higher than that for a slave caught before he could reach the river. To the west and south of the core territory lay the region known as "Luwiya" in the earliest Hittite texts. This terminology was replaced by the names Arzawa and Kizzuwatna with the rise of those kingdoms. Nevertheless, the Hittites continued to refer to the language that originated in these areas as Luwian. Prior to the rise of Kizzuwatna, the heart of that territory in Cilicia was first referred to by the Hittites as Adaniya. Upon its revolt from the Hittites during the reign of Ammuna, it assumed the name of Kizzuwatna and successfully expanded northward to encompass the lower Anti-Taurus Mountains as well. To the north, lived the mountainous people called the Kaskians. To the southeast of the Hittites lay the Hurrian empire of Mitanni. At its peak, during the reign of Muršili II, the Hittite empire stretched from Arzawa in the west to Mitanni in the east, many of the Kaskian territories to the north including Hayasa-Azzi in the far north-east, and on south into Canaan approximately as far as the southern border of Lebanon, incorporating all of these territories within its domain. History Origins It generally is assumed that the Hittites came into Anatolia some time before 2000 BC. While their earlier location is disputed, it has been speculated by scholars for more than a century that the Yamnaya culture of the Pontic–Caspian steppe, in present-day Ukraine, around the Sea of Azov, spoke an early Indo-European language during the third and fourth millennia BC. The arrival of the Hittites in Anatolia in the Bronze Age was one of a superstrate imposing itself on a native culture (in this case over the pre-existing Hattians and Hurrians), either by means of conquest or by gradual assimilation. In archaeological terms, relationships of the Hittites to the Ezero culture of the B..
   
5. Title: Wikiwand: Royal court
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Royal_court;
   Note: A court is an extended royal household in a monarchy, including all those who regularly attend on a monarch, or another central figure. Hence the word court may also be applied to the coterie of a senior member of the nobility. Royal courts may have their seat in a designated place, several specific places, or be a mobile, itinerant court. In the largest courts, the royal households, many thousands of individuals comprised the court. These courtiers included the monarch or noble's camarilla and retinue, household, nobility, those with court appointments, bodyguard, and may also include emissaries from other kingdoms or visitors to the court. Foreign princes and foreign nobility in exile may also seek refuge at a court. Near Eastern and Eastern courts often included the harem and concubines as well as eunuchs who fulfilled a variety of functions. At times, the harem was walled off and separate from the rest of the residence of the monarch. In Asia, concubines were often a more visible part of the court. Lower ranking servants and bodyguards were not properly called courtiers, though they might be included as part of the court or royal household in the broadest definition. Entertainers and others may have been counted as part of the court. Patronage and courtly culture A royal household is the highest-ranking example of patronage. A regent or viceroy may hold court during the minority or absence of the hereditary ruler, and even an elected head of state may develop a court-like entourage of unofficial, personally-chosen advisors and "companions." The French word compagnon and its English derivation "companion" literally connote a "sharer of the bread" at table, and a court is an extension of the great individual's household. Wherever members of the household and bureaucrats of the administration overlap in personnel, it is reasonable to speak of a "court," for example in Achaemenid Persia, Ming China, Norman Sicily, the Papacy before 1870 (see Papal Household), and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A group of individuals dependent on the patronage of a great man, classically in ancient Rome, forms part of the system of "clientage" that is discussed under vassal. Individual rulers differed greatly in tastes and interests, as well as in political skills and in constitutional situations. Accordingly, some founded elaborate courts based on new palaces, only to have their successors retreat to remote castles or to practical administrative centers. Personal retreats might arise far away from official court centers. Etiquette and hierarchy flourish in highly structured court settings, and may leave conservative traces over generations. Most courts featured a strict order of precedence, often involving royal and noble ranks, orders of chivalry, and nobility. Some courts even featured court uniforms. One of the major markers of a court is ceremony. Most monarchal courts included ceremonies concerning the investiture or coronation of the monarch and audiences with the monarch. Some courts had ceremonies around the waking and the sleeping of the monarch, called a levée. Orders of chivalry as honorific orders became an important part of court culture starting in the 15th century. They were the right of the monarch, as the fount of honor, to create and grant. History Early history The earliest developed courts were probably in the Akkadian Empire, in Ancient Egypt, and in Asia in China during the Shang dynasty, but we find evidence of courts as described in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and in Asia in the Zhou Dynasty. Two of the earliest titles referring to the concept of a courtier were likely the "ša rēsi" and "mazzāz pāni" of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. In Ancient Egypt we find a title translated as high steward or great overseer of the house. The royal courts influenced by the court of the Neo-Assyrian Empire such as those of the Median Empire and the Achaemenid Empire would also have identifiable developed courts with court appointments and other features associated with later courts. The imperial court of the Achaemenid Empire at Persepolis and Pasargadae is the earliest identifiable complex court with all of the definitive features of a royal court such as a household, court appointments, courtiers, and court ceremony. Though Alexander the Great had an entourage and the rudimentary elements of a court it was not until after he conquered Persia that he took many of the more complex Achaemenid court customs back to the Kingdom of Macedonia to develop a royal court that later would influence the courts of Hellenistic Greece and the Roman Empire. The Sasanian Empire adopting and developing the earlier court culture and customs of the Achaemenid Empire would also influence again the development of the complex court and court customs of the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire. The imperial court of the Byzantine Empire at Constantinople would eventually contain at least a thousand courtiers. The court's systems became prevalent in other courts such as those in the Balkan states, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia. Byzantinism is a term that was coined for this spread of the Byzantine system in the 19th century. East Asia The imperial courts of Chinese emperors, known as "cháotíng" (朝廷), were among the largest and most complex of all. The Han dynasty, Western Jin dynasty, and Tang dynasty occupied the large palace complex at Weiyang Palace located near Chang'an, and the later Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty occupied the whole Forbidden City and other parts of Beijing, the present capital city of China. By the Sui dynasty, the functions of the imperial household and the imperial government were clearly divided. During the Heian period, Japanese emperors and their families developed an exquisitely refined court that played an important role in their culture. Medieval and modern Europe After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, a true court culture can be recognized in the entourage of the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great and in the court of Charlemagne. In the Roman East, a brilliant court continued to surround the Byzantine emperors. In Western Europe, consolidation of power of local magnates and of kings in fixed administrative centers from the mid-13th century led to the creation of a distinct court culture that was the center of intellectual and artistic patronage rivaling the abbots and bishops, in addition to its role as the apex of a rudimentary political bureaucracy that rivaled the courts of counts and dukes. The dynamics of hierarchy welded the court cultures together. Many early courts in Western Europe were itinerant courts that traveled from place to place. Local courts proliferated in the splintered polities of medieval Europe and remained in early modern times in Germany and in Italy. Such courts became known for intrigue and power politics; some also gained prominence as centers and collective patrons of art and culture. In medieval Spain (Castile), provincial courts were created. Minor noblemen and "burguesie" allied to create a system to oppose the monarchy on many policy issues. They were called "las Cortes de Castilla." These courts are the root of the current Spanish congress and senate. The courts of the Duchy of Burgundy and the Kingdom of Portugal were particularly influential over the development of court culture and pageantry in Europe. The court of Philip the Good was considered one of the most splendid in Europe and would influence the development of court life later on for all of France and Europe. Later Aliénor de Poitiers of the Burgundian court would write one of the seminal books on court etiquette Les honneurs de la cour (Honors of the Court). Court life would reach its apogee of culture, complexity and etiquette at the courts of Versailles under Louis XIV of France and the Hofburg under the Habsburgs. As political executive functions generally moved to more democratic bases, noble courts have seen their function reduced once more to that of a noble household, concentrating on personal service to the household head, ceremonial and perhaps some residual politico-advisory functions. If republican zeal has banished an area's erstwhile ruling nobility, courts may survive in exile. Traces of royal court practices remain in present-day institutions like privy councils and governmental cabinets. Africa Main article: Monarchy in Africa A series of Pharaohs ruled Ancient Egypt over the course of three millennia (circa 3150 BC to 31 BC), until it was conquered by the Roman Empire. In the same time period several kingdoms with their own royal courts flourished in the nearby Nubia region, with at least one of them, that of the so-called A-Group culture, apparently influencing the customs of Egypt itself. From the 6th to 19th centuries, Egypt was variously part of the Byzantine Empire, Islamic Empire, Mamluk Sultanate, Ottoman Empire and British Empire with a distant monarch. The Sultanate of Egypt was a short lived protectorate of the United Kingdom from 1914 until 1922, when it became the Kingdom of Egypt and Sultan Fuad I changed his title to King. After the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 the monarchy was dissolved and Egypt became a republic. In the Horn of Africa, the Kingdom of Aksum and later the Zagwe Dynasty, Ethiopian Empire (1270–1974), and Aussa Sultanate all had royal courts. Various Somali Sultanates also existed, including the Adal Sultanate (led by the Walashma dynasty of the Ifat Sultanate), Sultanate of Mogadishu, Ajuran Sultanate, Warsangali Sultanate, Geledi Sultanate, Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo. The kingship system has been an integral part of the more centralized African societies for millennia. This is especially true in the West African sahel, where royal courts have been in existence since at least the era of the 9th century Takrur and Ghana empires. The ruler of the 13th century Mali empire, Mansa Musa, brought a large number of his courtiers with him on the..
   
6. Title: Wikiwand: Ḫattušili I
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/%E1%B8%AAattu%C5%A1ili_I;
   Note: Hattusili I ("Ḫattušili I") was a king of the Hittite Old Kingdom. He reigned ca. 1586–1556 BC (short chronology). He used the title of Labarna at the beginning of his reign. It is uncertain whether he is the second king so identified, making him Labarna II, or whether he is identical to Labarna I, who is treated as his predecessor in Hittite chronologies. During his reign, he moved the capital from Neša (Kaneš, near modern Kültepe) to Ḫattuša (near modern Boğazkale), taking the throne name of "Ḫattušili" to mark the occasion. He is the earliest Hittite ruler for whom contemporary records have been found. In addition to "King of Ḫattuša," he took the title "Man of Kuššara," a reference to the prehistoric capital and home of the Hittites, before they had occupied Neša. A cuneiform tablet found in 1957 written in both the Hittite and the Akkadian language provides details of six years of his reign. In it, he claims to have extended the Hittite domain to the sea, and in the second year, to have subdued Alalakh and other cities in Syria. In the third year, he campaigned against Arzawa in western Anatolia, then returned to Syria to spend the next three years retaking his former conquests from the Hurrians, who had occupied them in his absence.
   
7. Title: Wikiwand: Emil Forrer
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Emil_Forrer;
   Note: Emil Orgetorix Gustav Forrer (also Emilio O. Forrer; German: [ˈfɔʀɐ]; 19 February 1894, Straßburg, Alsace-Lorraine – 10 January 1986, San Salvador) was a Swiss Assyriologist and pioneering Hittitologist. Moreover, Emil Forrer developed a deviant interdisciplinary field of research ("Meropisforschung"), based on textual fragments of the Greek historian Theopompus of Chios, and dealing with assumed pre- or protohistoric contacts between the Old- and the New World. Antithetic to the prevailing academic school of thought, Forrer advocated the idea that Theopomp's "Meropis" was not a fictional place, but an actually existing geographic entity. Works Forrer, E. "Neue Probleme zum Ursprung der indogermanichen Sprachen." "Mannus," B. 26, 1934 Forrer, E. "Homerisch und silenisch Amerika," San Salvador (author's edition) 1975
   
8. Title: Wikiwand: Lugal
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lugal;
   Note: Lugal (Sumerian: 𒈗) is the Sumerian term for "king, ruler." Literally, the term means "big man." In Sumerian, "lu," "𒇽" is "man" and "gal," "𒃲" is "great," or "big." It was one of several Sumerian titles that a ruler of a city-state could bear (alongside "en" and "ensi," the exact difference being a subject of debate). The sign eventually became the predominant logograph for "King" in general. In the Sumerian language, "lugal" is used to mean an owner (e.g. of a boat or a field) or a head (of a unit such as a family). As a cuneiform logograph (Sumerogram) LUGAL (Unicode: 𒈗, rendered in Neo Assyrian). Cuneiform The cuneiform sign LUGAL 𒈗 (Borger nr. 151, Unicode U+12217) serves as a determinative in cuneiform texts (Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite), indicating that the following word is the name of a king. In Akkadian orthography, it may also be a syllabogram "šàr," acrophonically based on the Akkadian for "king," "šarrum." "Lugal," "ensi" and "en" There are different theories regarding the meaning of the title "lugal" in 3rd-millennium Sumer. Some scholars believe that a ruler of an individual city-state was usually called "ensi," and a ruler who headed a confederacy or larger dominion composed of several cities, perhaps even the whole of Sumer, was a "lugal." The functions of such a "lugal" would include certain ceremonial and cultic activities, arbitration in border disputes, military defense against external enemies, and once the lugal has died, the eldest son must take over. The "ensis" of Lagash sometimes would refer to the city's patron deity, Ningirsu, as their "lugal" ("master"). All of the above is connected to the possibly priestly or sacral character of the titles "ensi" and especially "en" (the latter term continuing to designate priests in subsequent times). Other scholars consider "ensi," "en" and "lugal" to have been merely three local designations for the sovereign, accepted respectively in the city-states of Lagash, Uruk and Ur (as well as most of the rest of Sumer), although the various terms may have expressed different aspects of the Mesopotamian concept of kingship. A lugal at that time is assumed to have been "normally a young man of outstanding qualities from a rich landowning family." Thorkild Jacobsen theorized that he was originally an (elected) war leader, as opposed to the (likewise elected) "en," who dealt with internal issues. Among the earliest rulers whose inscriptions describe them as "lugals" are Enmebaragesi and Mesilim at Kish, and Meskalamdug, Mesannepada and several of their successors at Ur. At least from the Third Dynasty of Ur onwards, only lugal was used to designate a contemporary sovereign in Sumerian. "Lugal" in the Amarna letters The term "Lugal" is used extensively in the Amarna letters, for addressing kings or pharaohs, and elsewhere in speaking about various kings. One common address, in the introduction of many letters, from the vassals writing to the pharaoh was to use: "Šàr-ri," (for "šarrum"); they used Lugal + ri = Šàr-ri, (i.e. Pharaoh, or King of, Ancient Egypt). (Ri is one of the more commonly used hieroglyphs, in many cases for the use of the "r").
   
9. Title: Wikiwand: Short chronology
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Short_chronology;
   Note: The short chronology is one of the chronologies of the Near Eastern Bronze and Early Iron Age, which fixes the reign of Hammurabi to 1728–1686 BC and the sack of Babylon to 1531 BC. The absolute 2nd millennium BC dates resulting from these reference points have very little academic support, and have essentially been disproved by recent dendrochronology research. The "middle chronology" (reign of Hammurabi 1792–1750 BC) is more commonly accepted in academic literature. For much of the period in question, middle chronology dates can be calculated by adding 64 years to the corresponding short chronology date (e.g. 1728 BC in short chronology corresponds to 1792 in middle chronology). After the so-called "dark age" between the fall of Babylon and the rise of the Kassite dynasty in Babylonia, absolute dating becomes less uncertain. While exact dates are still not agreed upon, the 64-year middle/short chronology gap ceases from the beginning of the Third Babylon Dynasty onward. Early Bronze Age Estimation of absolute dates becomes possible for the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. For the first half of the 3rd millennium, only very rough chronological matching of archaeological dates with written records is possible. Kings of Ebla Main article: Ebla The city-states of Ebla and Mari (in modern Syria) competed for power at this time. Eventually, under Irkab-Damu, Ebla defeated Mari for control of the region just in time to face the rise of Uruk and Akkad. After years of back and forth, Ebla was destroyed by the Akkadian Empire. Pottery seals of the Egyptian pharaoh Pepi I have been found in the wreckage of the city. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Igrish-Halam c. 2300 BC Irkab-Damu Contemporary of Iblul-Il of Mari Ar-Ennum or Reshi-Ennum Ibrium or Ebrium Contemporary of Tudiya of Assyria (treaty) Ibbi-Sipish or Ibbi-Zikir Son of Ibrium Dubuhu-Ada Ebla destroyed by Naram-Sin of Akkad or Sargon of Akkad Sumer Further information: Sumerian king list Third Dynasty of Uruk Further information: Uruk Lugal-zage-si of Umma rules from Uruk after defeating Lagash, eventually falling to the emerging Akkadian Empire. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Lugal-zage-si 2295–2271 BC Defeats Urukagina of Lagash and is in turn defeated by Sargon of Akkad Dynasty of Akkad Further information: Akkad Since Akkad (or Agade), the capital of the Akkadian Empire, has not yet been found, available chronological data comes from outlying locations like Ebla, Tell Brak, Nippur, Susa and Tell Leilan. Clearly, the expansion of Akkad came under the rules of Sargon and Naram-sin. Its last king, Shar-kali-sharri barely held the empire together, but upon his death, it fragmented. Finally, the city of Akkad itself was destroyed by the Guti. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Sargon 2270–2215 BC Rimush 2214–2206 BC Son of Sargon Man-ishtishu 2205–2191 BC Son of Sargon Naram-sin 2190–2154 BC Grandson of Sargon Shar-kali-sharri 2153–2129 BC Son of Naram-sin Irgigi Nanum Imi Ilulu Dudu 2125–2104 BC Shu-Durul 2104–2083 BC City of Akkad falls to the Guti Gutian Kings Further information: Gutian dynasty of Sumer First appearing in the area during the reign of Sargon of Akkad, the Guti became a regional power after the decline of the Akkadian Empire following Shar-kali-sharri. The dynasty ends with the defeat of the last king, Tirigan, by Uruk. Only a handful of the Guti kings are attested to by inscriptions, aside from the Sumerian king list. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Erridupizir 2141–2138 BC Royal inscription at Nippur Imta or Nibia (There is no king for 3 or 5 years) 2138–2135 BC Inkishush 2135–2129 BC First Gutian ruler on the Sumerian king list Sarlagab 2129–2126 BC Shulme 2126–2120 BC Elulmesh or Silulumesh 2120–2114 BC Inimabakesh 2114–2109 BC Igeshaush or Igeaus 2109–2103 BC Yarlagab or Yarlaqaba 2103–2088 BC Ibate 2088–2085 BC Yarlangab or Yarla 2085–2082 BC Kurum 2082–2081 BC Apilkin or Habil-kin or Apil-kin 2081–2078 BC La-erabum 2078–2076 BC Mace head inscription Irarum 2076–2074 BC Ibranum 2074–2073 BC Hablum 2073–2071 BC Puzur-Suen 2071–2064 BC Son of Hablum Yarlaganda 2064–2057 BC Foundation inscription at Umma Si-um or Si-u 2057–2050 BC Foundation inscription at Umma Tirigan 2050–2050 BC Contemporary of Utu-hengal of Uruk Second Dynasty of Lagash Further information: Lagash Following the collapse of the Akkadian Empire after Shar-kali-sharri of Akkad under pressure from the invading Gutians, Lagash gradually regained prominence. As a client state to the Gutian Kings, Lagash was extremely successful, peaking under the rule of Gudea. After the last Gutian king, Tirigan, was defeated, by Utu-hengal, Lagash came under the control of Ur under Ur-Namma. Note that there is some indication that the order of the last two rulers of Lagash should be reversed. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Lugalushumgal ca. 2140 ruled under Gutian kings Puzer-Mama Ur-Utu Ur-Mama Lu-Baba Lugula Kaku or Kakug ended 2093 Ur-Bau or Ur-baba 2093–2080 BC Gudea 2080–2060 BC Son-in-law of Ur-baba Ur-Ningirsu 2060–2055 BC Son of Gudea Pirigme or Ugme 2055–2053 BC Grandson of Gudea Ur-gar 2053–2049 BC Nammahani 2049–2046 BC Grandson of Kaku, defeated by Ur-Namma Fifth Dynasty of Uruk Further information: Uruk Uniting various Sumerian city-states, Utu-hengal frees the region from the Gutians. Note that the Sumerian king list records a preceding 4th Dynasty of Uruk which is as yet unattested. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Utu-hengal 2055–2048 BC Appoints Ur-Namma as governor of Ur Third Dynasty of Ur (Sumerian Renaissance) Main article: Third Dynasty of Ur In an apparently peaceful transition, Ur came to power after the end of the reign of Utu-hengal of Uruk, with the first king, Ur-Namma, solidifying his power with the defeat of Lagash. By the dynasty's end with the destruction of Ur by Elamites and Shimashki, the dynasty included little more than the area around Ur. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Ur-Namma or Ur-Engur 2047–2030 BC Defeated Nammahani of Lagash; Contemporary of Utu-hengal of Uruk Shulgi 2029–1982 BC Possible lunar/solar eclipse 2005 BC Amar-Suena 1981–1973 BC Son of Shulgi Shu-Suen 1972–1964 BC Ibbi-Suen 1963–1940 BC Son of Shu-Suen Middle Bronze Age The Old Assyrian / Old Babylonian period (20th to 15th centuries) First Dynasty of Isin Further information: Isin After Ishbi-Erra of Isin breaks away from the declining Third Dynasty of Ur under Ibbi-Suen, Isin reaches its peak under Ishme-Dagan. Weakened by attacks from the upstart Babylonians, Isin eventually falls to its rival Larsa under Rim-Sin I. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Ishbi-Erra 1953–1921 BC Contemporary of Ibbi-Suen of Ur III Šu-ilišu 1920–1911 BC Son of Ishbi-Erra Iddin-Dagan 1910–1890 BC Son of Shu-ilishu Ishme-Dagan 1889–1871 BC Son of Iddin-Dagan Lipit-Eshtar 1870–1860 BC Contemporary of Gungunum of Larsa Ur-Ninurta 1859–1832 BC Contemporary of Abisare of Larsa Bur-Suen 1831–1811 BC Son of Ur-Ninurta Lipit-Enlil 1810–1806 BC Son of Bur-Suen Erra-Imittī or Ura-imitti 1805–1799 BC Enlil-bāni 1798–1775 BC Contemporary of Sumu-la-El of Babylon Zambīia 1774–1772 BC Contemporary of Sin-Iqisham of Larsa Iter-piša 1771–1768 BC Ur-du-kuga 1767–1764 BC Suen-magir 1763–1753 BC Damiq-ilishu 1752–1730 BC Son of Suen-magir Kings of Larsa Further information: Larsa The chronology of the Kingdom of Larsa is based mainly on the Larsa King List (Larsa Dynastic List), the Larsa Date Lists, and a number of royal inscriptions and commercial records. The Larsa King List was compiled in Babylon during the reign of Hammurabi, conqueror of Larsa. It is suspected that the list elevated the first several Amorite Isinite governors of Larsa to kingship so as to legitimize the rule of the Amorite Babylonians over Larsa. After a period of Babylonian occupation, Larsa briefly breaks free in a revolt ended by the death of the last king, Rim-Sin II. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Naplanum 1961–1940 BC Contemporary of Ibbi-Suen of Ur III Emisum 1940–1912 BC Samium 1912–1877 BC Zabaia 1877–1868 BC Son of Samium, First royal inscription Gungunum 1868–1841 BC Gained independence from Lipit-Eshtar of Isin Abisare 1841–1830 BC Sumuel 1830–1801 BC Nur-Adad 1801–1785 BC Contemporary of Sumu-la-El of Babylon Sin-Iddinam 1785–1778 BC Son of Nur-Adad Sin-Eribam 1778–1776 BC Sin-Iqisham 1776–1771 BC Contemporary of Zambiya of Isin, Son of Sin-Eribam Silli-Adad 1771–1770 BC Warad-Sin 1770–1758 BC Possible co-regency with Kudur-Mabuk his father Rim-Sin I 1758–1699 BC Contemporary of Irdanene of Uruk, Defeated by Hammurabi of Babylon, Brother of Warad-Sin Hammurabi of Babylon 1699–1686 BC Official Babylonian rule Samsu-iluna of Babylon 1686–1678 BC Official Babylonian rule Rim-Sin II 1678–1674 BC Killed in revolt against Babylon First Babylonian dynasty (Dynasty I) Main article: First Babylonian dynasty Following the fall of the Ur III Dynasty, the resultant power vacuum was contested by Isin and Larsa, with Babylon and Assyria later joining the fray. In the second half of the reign of Hammurabi, Babylon became the preeminent power, a position it largely maintained until the sack by Mursili I in 1531 BC. Note that there are no contemporary accounts of the sack of Babylon. It is inferred from much later documents. Ruler Proposed reign Notes Sumu-abum or Su-abu 1830–1817 BC Contemporary of Ilushuma of Assyria Sumu-la-El 1817–1781 BC Contemporary of Erishum I of Assyria Sabium or Sabum 1781–1767 BC Son of Sumu-la-El Apil-Sin 1767–1749 BC Son of Sabium Sin-muballit 1748–1729 BC Son of Apil-Sin Hammurabi 1728–1686 BC Contemporary of Zimri-Lim of Mari, Siwe-palar-huppak of Elam and Shamshi-Adad I Samsu-iluna 1686–1648 BC Son of Hammurabi Abi-eshuh or Abieshu 1648–1620 BC Son of Samsu-iluna Ammi-ditana 1620–1583 BC Son of Abi-eshuh Ammi-saduqa or Ammisaduqa 1582–1562 BC Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa Samsu-Ditana 1562–1531 BC Sack of Babylon 1st Sealand Dynasty (2nd Dynasty of Babylon) Main article: Sea..