Ḫattušili ap Labarna I, 2nd King of the Hittites I

• Preferred Name: Ḫattušili ap Labarna I, 2nd King of the Hittites I^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}
  
• Gender: M
  
• FSID: GQGN-ZRX
  
• Death: ABT 1620 BC in Hattusa, Anatolia, Turkey at LATI: N9 LONG: E5
  
• http://familysearch.org/v1/TitleOfNobility: King of Ḫattuša
  
• http://familysearch.org/v1/TitleOfNobility: Man of Kuššara
  
• http://familysearch.org/v1/TitleOfNobility: 2nd King of the Hittite Old KingdomBET 1650 BC AND 1620 BC with note: Wikiwand: Ḫattušili I
  
• Residence: moved the capital from Neša (Kaneš, near modern Kültepe) to Ḫattuša (near modern Boğazkale)
  
• Notes:

  === Life Sketch ===
  Hattusili I (Ḫattušili I) was a king of the Hittite Old Kingdom. He reigned ca. 1650–1620 BCE (middle chronology), or 1586–1556 BCE (short chronology). Excavations in Zincirli Höyük, Southern Turkey, suggest that Hattusili I destroyed a complex at that site in the mid to late 17th century BCE, which can confirm the middle chronology dating for his reign. This event could have been part of his campaign against Zalpa in order to disrupt an exchange network connected to Aleppo that previously linked the Euphrates, North Syria, and Central Anatolia.
  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, known as Annals of Hattusili I, provides details of five years of his reign, and is considered by Trevor R. Bryce as a copy, after the lifetime of this king, written in 13th century BCE. In it, he claims to have extended the Hittite domain to the sea. In the first year of campaign he reached the cities of Sanahuitta and Zalpa, he failed to conquer the former but sacked the later. And in the second year, he claimed to have subdued Alalakh and other cities in Syria, located west of Euphrates and north of Carchemish, which were allied to Yamhad kingdom. In the third year, he campaigned against Arzawa in western Anatolia, as the Annals only say he: "went to the land of Arzawa and took away its cattle and sheep." In the fourth year, he finally captured Sanahuitta after five months of siege. In the fifth year, the last of his campaigns, the Annals recorded a long list of conquered cities and lands when he crossed the Euphrates, claiming that no one did it before but king Sargon of Akkad, who crossed the river in the opposite direction.
  
  The end of his reign is of historical importance because of his Succession Proclamation. This document, written in first person, tells of Ḫattušili coming back wounded from his last military campaign. On his deathbed he is enraged by the attitude of his heir and how he is conspiring with his mother and cousins. Ḫattušili then explains that for these reasons Mursili, his grandson, will be the next king instead, and urges the army and public servants to obey him.
  
  The arguments are in a tablet, classified as CTH 6, also known as the "Testament of Hattusili I," in which he rejects his nephew as his successor, and designates his grandson Mursili I to occupy the throne. This Testament as well as the Annals survived only as a late 13th century BCE copy.
  
  This apparently worked since Mursili indeed became king and continued Ḫattušili's military campaigns, finally conquering Aleppo and sacking Babylon.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ḫattušili_I

1. Parent of Ḫaštayara Ben Hattusili I I,    

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: 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..
   
3. Title: Wikiwand: Kültepe
   Author: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Publication: Name: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/K%C3%BCltepe;
   Note: Kültepe (Turkish: "Ash Hill" and Persian: "کل تپه,"‎ "koltape") is an archaeological site in Kayseri Province, Turkey. The nearest modern city to Kültepe is Kayseri, about 20 km southwest. It consists of a tell, the actual Kültepe, and a lower town, where an Assyrian settlement was found. Its name in Assyrian texts from the 20th century BC was Kaneš; the later Hittites mostly called it Neša, occasionally Aniša. In 2014 the archaeological site was inscribed in the Tentative list of World Heritage Sites in Turkey. It is also the site of discovery of the earliest traces of the Hittite language, the earliest attestation of any Indo-European language, dated to the 20th century BC. History Kaneš, inhabited continuously from the Chalcolithic to Roman times, flourished as an important Hattian, Hittite and Hurrian city, containing a large "kārum" (merchant colony) of the Old Assyrian Empire from c. the 21st to 18th centuries BC. This kārum appears to have served as "the administrative and distribution centre of the entire Assyrian colony network in Anatolia." A late (c. 1400 BC) witness to an old tradition includes a king of Kaneš called Zipani among seventeen local city-kings who rose up against Naram-Sin of Akkad (ruled c. 2254-2218 BC). Kaneša The king of Zalpuwa, Uhna, raided Kanes, after which the Zalpuwans carried off the city's "Šiuš" idol. Pithana, the king of Kussara, conquered Neša "in the night, by force," but "did not do evil to anyone in it." Neša revolted against the rule of Pithana's son, Anitta, but Anitta quashed the revolt and made Neša his capital. Anitta further invaded Zalpuwa, captured its king Huzziya, and recovered the "Šiuš" idol for Neša. In the 17th century BC, Anitta's descendants moved their capital to Hattusa, which Anitta had cursed, thus founding the line of Hittite kings. The inhabitants thus referred to the Hittite language as Nešili, "the language of Neša." Archaeology In 1925, Bedřich Hrozný excavated Kültepe and found over 1000 cuneiform tablets, some of which ended up in Prague and in Istanbul. Modern archaeological work began in 1948, when Kültepe was excavated by a team from the Turkish Historical Society and the General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums. The team was led by Tahsin Özgüç until his death, in 2005. . Level IV-III. Little excavation has been done for these levels, which represent the kârum's first habitation (Mellaart 1957). No writing is attested, and archaeologists assume that both levels' inhabitants were illiterate. . Level II, 1974 BC - 1836 BC (Mesopotamian Middle Chronology according to Veenhof). Craftsmen of this time and place specialised in animal-shaped earthen drinking vessels, which were often used for religious rituals. Assyrian merchants then established a merchant colony (kârum) attached to the city, which was called "Kaneš..Bullae of Naram-Sin of Eshnunna have been found toward the end of this level (Ozkan 1993), which was burned to the ground. . Level Ib, 1798 BC - 1740 BC. After an interval of abandonment, the city was rebuilt over the ruins of the old and again became a prosperous trade center. The trade was under the control of Ishme-Dagan I, who was put in control of Assur when his father, Shamshi-Adad I, conquered Ekallatum and Assur. However, the colony was again destroyed by fire. . Level Ia. The city was reinhabited, but the Assyrian colony was no longer inhabited. The culture was early Hittite. Its name in Hittite became "Kaneša," which more commonly was contracted to "Neša." Some attribute Level II's burning to the conquest of the city of Assur by the kings of Eshnunna, but Bryce blames it on the raid of Uhna. Some attribute Level Ib's burning to the fall of Assur, other nearby kings and eventually to Hammurabi of Babylon. To date, over 20,000 cuneiform tablets have been recovered from the site. Kârum Kaneš The quarter of the city that most interests historians is the "kārum," a portion of the city that was, during the Chalcolithic, set aside by local officials for the early Assyrian merchants to use without paying taxes as long as the goods remained inside the "kārum." The term "kārum" means "port" in Akkadian, the "lingua franca" of the time, but its meaning was later extended to refer to any trading colony whether or not it bordered water. Several other cities in Anatolia also had a "kārum," but the largest was Kaneš, whose important "kārum" was inhabited by soldiers and merchants from Assyria for hundreds of years. They traded local tin and wool for luxury items, foodstuffs, spices and woven fabrics from the Assyrian homeland and Elam. The remains of the "kārum" form a large circular mound 500 m in diameter and about 20 m above the plain (a tell). The "kārum" settlement is the result of several superimposed stratigraphic periods. New buildings were constructed on top of the remains of the earlier periods so there is a deep stratigraphy from prehistoric times to the early Hittite period. The "kārum" was destroyed by fire at the end of both levels II and Ib. The inhabitants left most of their possessions behind, to be found by modern archaeologists. The findings have included numerous baked-clay tablets, some of which were enclosed in clay envelopes stamped with cylinder seals. The documents record common activities, such as trade between the Assyrian colony and the city-state of Assur and between Assyrian merchants and local people. The trade was run by families rather than the state. The Kültepe texts are the oldest documents from Anatolia. Although they are written in Old Assyrian, the Hittite loanwords and names in the texts are the oldest record of any Indo-European language (see also Ishara). Most of the archaeological evidence is typical of Anatolia rather than of Assyria, but the use of both cuneiform and the dialect is the best indication of Assyrian presence. Dating of Waršama Sarayi At Level II, the destruction was so total that no wood survived for dendrochronological studies. In 2003, researchers from Cornell University dated wood in level Ib from the rest of the city, built centuries earlier. The dendrochronologists date the bulk of the wood from buildings of the Waršama Sarayi to 1832 BC, with further refurbishments up to 1779 BC. In 2016 new research using carbondating and dendrology on timber used in this site and the palace in Acemhöyük show the likely earliest use of the palace as not before 1851–1842 BCE (68.2% hpd; the 95.4% hpd is 1855–1839 BCE). In combination with the many Assyrian objects found here, this dating shows that only middle or low-middle chronology are the only remaining possible chronologies that fit these new data.
   
4. Title: Hittites.info: Early Empire, Commonly referred to as the Old Kingdom
   Publication: Name: http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2FEarly+Empire.htm;
   Note: Ḫattuša: Due to later construction, not much remains of the Old Kingdom city (Bittel (1970)). (The following begins the exploration of a hypothesis by the author that many Old Hittite rituals incorporated aspects of the early formation of the Hittite Old Kingdom and the rise of its dynasty. The dynasty's principle means of apology and justification was the subjugation of the ritual for secular purposes. I do not think that the Hittite dynasty was operating outside of a Ḫattian milieu when they did this. The first version of the myth/ritual concerning the Storm God and the Serpent I believe was a pre-Hittite dynastic founding myth which the Hittites incorporated into their own founding mythology. The whole thing is, obviously, highly speculative at this time.) The origins of Hittite kingship are still obscured by a lack of documentation and the sad state of preservation of our earliest documents dealing with this topic. We therefore stretch the limits of our resources in an attempt to form a least a shady picture of the historical development. Our three most important texts here are The Anitta Text - dealt with earlier, The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa, and A Ritual for the Construction of a New Palace. The last of these, the ritual, is preserved in several copies. The main copy dates from the Empire period and is almost undamaged. Clues in the language point to an Old Hittite origin for this text, and one Old Hittite fragment has also been discovered, confirming the early composition of this text. The connection between the ritual text and the Queen of Kaniš text is tantalizing but admittedly highly speculative. In the significant line, the king addresses his throne dias, which was also a goddess known as Ḫalmašuitt, to whom this ritual was dedicated; "Oh Ḫalmašuitt, you brought the light carriage to the king - to me - from the sea as (a symbol of) dominion. {The gods} opened the land of my mother. They called me, the king, 'Labarna!'" (KUB 29.1 i 23-25.) It's possible that the 'me' referred to here originally may have been Ḫattušili I (i.e. Labarna II), although in practice it would refer to whatever king was conducting the ritual. The "light carriage" was some sort of vehicle in which the king would ride when he was in the city of Ḫattuša, as opposed to whenever he left the city, when he rode in a chariot. Other than the king, only gods are attested riding in a light carriage, with perhaps a priest of the god who served to steady the god's idol. Clearly then, the "light carriage" was a potent symbol of power. But it is the line about the sea which is of greatest interest here. It could mean that the Hittite king perceived his power as truly originating from the sea, but Ḫalmašuitt is in no other way connected with water. In fact, in this ritual she is considered the proprieter of the trees in the mountains! This line is, however, reminiscent of lines from the other two Old Hittite compositions under consideration here, The Anitta Text and The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa. In The Anitta Text we read of "the sea of Zalpuwa" and of "Zalpuwa by the sea". The Queen of Kaniš and the Tale of Zalpa begins with the thirty sons of the queen of Kaniš being floated down a river which "carried them down to the sea, to the land of Zalpuwa," where, "the gods recovered the children from the sea and raised them." The text then goes on to relate how the sons returned to Kaniš and how the cities of Kaniš and Zalpa entered in to a sinful compact (through incestuous marriages). Just as the youngest son begins to denounce the sin, the text breaks. When the text resumes again, an unnamed Hittite king (Ḫattušili I?) is describing a conflict with Zalpa which continued through three generations of Hittite rulers. The text ends with the Hittite destruction of Zalpa. The temptation to connect a long term conflict between Ḫatti and Zalpuwa by the sea - which ultimately favored the Hittites - with the ritual's reference to a symbol of dominion being brought to the Hittite king from the sea is obvious. Perhaps we can recreate a scenerio in which the Hittites recognized some sort of Zalpuwan hegemeny in northern Anatolia which they struggled against. Then when they ultimately emerged victorious, they perceived it as a change from a Zalpuwan hegemeny to a Hittite hegemeny. So they incorporated a Zalpuwan symbol of power, the light carriage, as a symbol of their own power. It is frustrating to note once again a definite but completely opaque connection between Kaniš and the Hittite dynasty. The text begins with a description of relations between Zalpa and Kaniš, but ends with a description of relations between Zalpa and Ḫatti. The nature of the preserved segments makes it clear that the original, full text would have had to make the connection, but it is lost to us today! Having presented this hypothesis, we can go no further at this time. The evidence is simply not there. We shall have to set aside this speculative history for now, and turn our attention to the earliest Hittite rulers actually attested, who may go back fully three generations before the official beginning of the Old Kingdom under Labarna I. Developments elsewhere in the Mediterraenean: Crete (Castleden (1993) 79f.): Around 1700 BC, the era of the first temples on Crete came to an end when the temples and the towns around them were destroyed, possibly as a result of earthquakes. The destructions, while surely traumatic, was not fatal to the civilization, and both temples and towns were quickly rebuilt. During this New Temple Period, the rebuilt temples were enlarged, presumably indicating the continuation or even aggrandizement of their importance in Minoan communities. The towns themselves followed the settlement patterns of the previous period, but were themselves expanded as well. Most towns were located on or near the Cretan coast. In similar fashion to settlements elsewhere in the Near East, Minoan towns consisted of irregular blocks of houses separated by cobbled streets. The ground floors were used for storage, cooking, and other work activities while stairways led up to living and sleeping quarters. The towns of Knossos, Mallia and Zakro continued to grow in prominence. In addition to the major temple-palaces which dominated their towns, additional buildings - either houses or other sanctuaries - were built around them. These additional buildings are absent in other towns with temple-palaces such as Phaistos, Gournia, and Myrtos Pyrgos. The temple-palace of Knossos of the New Temple Period is the version seen at the ruins today, and, in its completed form of ca. 1400 BC, is probably the most ambitious building project ever undertaken by the Minoans. The famous Phaistos Disc appears to date from approximately 1700 BC. Tudḫaliya I It's not certain if Tudḫaliya ever ruled as a king. Ḫattuša was perhaps the Hittite capital again by or during the reign of Tudḫaliya I. A Tudḫaliya appears in the court of Zuzzu as the rab šaqē "Chief Cupbearer" (Hitt. GAL LÚSAGI), a high, non-military position probably held by members of the royal family (Beal, diss.). Chronologically, this could be the Tudḫaliya listed as the father of PU-Šarruma. If so, then we have a vital link between the Colony Period and the Hittite Period. (See Forlanini (1995)) Ḫuzziya 0 A Ḫuzziya is mentioned on the Cruciform seal of Muršili II (See Muršili II) before Labarna I, and is given the title "Great King". He might also be mentioned in the offering texts in a similar position. He is otherwise unknown. See Dinçol et al. 1993. The inclusion of Ḫuzziya on the Cruciform seal is very difficult to explain. The most likely scenerio is that this is a previously unknown ruler in Ḫattuša. However, one can perhaps think of Huzziya, king of Zalpuwa, defeated by Anitta. If so, then we find in the Cruciform Seal a direct connection between kingship in Zalpa and kingship in Ḫatti. While this must be considered rank speculation, it is not patently absurd. The Assyrian King List begins with a list of "kings dwelling in tents" and "kings who are the fathers". This may be the result of the Assyrians trying to insert their own dynasty into a list of recognized rulers in order to gain legitimacy. Perhaps at some point the Hittite rulers did the same, incorporating the Zalpan dynasty within their own. If Muršili came across such a document, it may have led to what we see in the Cruciform seal. PU-Šarruma, Son of Tudḫaliya I Virtually nothing is known of PU-Šarruma's life. Nevertheless, our continuous history of the Hittite dynasty begins with this shadowy figure. PU-Šarruma's sons were said to have turned against their father, so that, while he was in the city Šanaḫwitta, he named his son-in-law, Labarna, as his successor. However, this boded ill for the future, since one of his true sons, Papaḫdilmaḫ, still had support among the king's servants and chief officers. That the succession to the throne should be disputed between the two younger men, while perhaps not inevitable, is certainly not surprising. Papaḫdilmaḫ, Son of PU-Šarruma Name: Hattic Civil War against Labarna I. Labarna I (~1680~1650), Son-in-Law(?) of PU-Šarruma PU-Šarruma's intentions for the succession to his throne were temporarily frustrated by the actions of his servants and chief officers, who chose to recognize the rights of his son Papaḫdilmaḫ instead, and therefore placed him on the throne instead of Labarna. Labarna, however, did not concede the point, and a struggle for the throne ensued between the party of Papaḫdilmaḫ and that of Labarna. Nothing is known of the course of the conflict other than that Labarna emerged victorious and took the throne willed to him by his father-in-law. Papaḫdilmaḫ's supporters were to pay a heavy price, so that years later, when Labarna's successor was himself proclaiming a new successor to the throne, he recalled Labarna's foes, and asked about the..
   
5. 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.
   
6. 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..