The monarchs of Kush were the rulers of the ancient Kingdom of Kush (8th century BCE – 4th century CE), a major civilization in ancient Nubia (roughly corresponding to modern-day Sudan). Kushite power was centralised and unified over the course of the centuries following the collapse of the New Kingdom of Egypt c. 1069 BCE, leading to the eventual establishment of the Kingdom of Kush under Alara c. 780 BCE. Kush reached the apex of its power c. 739–656 BCE, when the Kushite kings also ruled as the Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt. The kingdom remained a powerful state in its heartland after Kushite rule in Egypt was terminated and it survived for another millennium until its collapse c. 350 CE. Egyptian culture heavily influenced Kush in terms of its royal and monumental iconography, though indigenous elements were also used and became increasingly prominent in the Meroitic period (c. 270 BCE–350 CE). There are no preserved Kushite lists of rulers and the regnal sequence is instead largely reconstructed based on evidence such as royal inscriptions and burials. Surviving sources are at several points scant, meaning that parts of the chronology and sequence are approximate and tentative. The list of rulers might also be incomplete given that future discoveries of additional royal names and burials are possible.

Introduction

Royal succession in Kush

The system of royal succession in the Kingdom of Kush is not well understood. There are no known administrative documents or histories written by the Kushites themselves; because very little of the royal genealogy can be reliably reconstructed, it is impossible to determine how the system functioned in theory and when or if it was ever broken. Royal women were prominent in Kushite society, especially in the Meroitic period (c. 270 BCE–350 CE). As a consequence it has long been disputed whether the Kushite succession was mainly patrilineal (inherited through male lines) or matrilineal (inherited through female lines). Further uncertainties would exist within either system; a patrilineal system can for instance be based around successions that are mainly father→son or mainly brother→brother. No ruling Kushite queens are known from before the Meroitic period, suggesting that they may have been excluded from holding office during earlier periods. Despite this, there are numerous royal inscriptions from pre-Meroitic kings, for instance Aspelta, that place emphasis only on their female ancestors. This is on its own generally not considered sufficient evidence for purely matrilineal succession and patrilineal relations are often assumed between rulers even when unsupported by evidence. As examples, kings Alara and Kashta are often assumed to have been brothers and Piye is often assumed to have been Kashta's son, though neither relation is supported by any direct evidence. Based on succession in Egypt during the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1069 BCE) and Third Intermediate (c. 1069–664 BCE) periods, it is conceivable that female lines of descent were just as important as male ones for establishing legitimacy. According to the archaeologist Robert Morkot, the heir who succeeded in claiming the throne might simply have been the strongest eligible royal descendant, instead of there being a clear succession system. Some successions, such as Taharqa to Tantamani to Atlanersa (seventh century BCE), are difficult to explain under either pure patrilineality or pure matrilineality. It was in older scholarship on Kush assumed that all monarchs were direct descendants of earlier monarchs. In the case of the especially limited material available for large parts of the Meroitic period, this in cases led to the assumption that any figure mentioned as the father of a ruling monarch must also have been a king, even if they are never attested in that role or mentioned elsewhere. Examples of such fathers of monarchs include Pisakar, Adeqetali, Teritnide, Arotnide, and Teritedakhetey, who sometimes still figure in modern reconstructed regnal lists (though most reconstructions omit them). In addition to not being directly attested as monarchs themselves, the names of these individuals do not fit with the known type of Kushite royal names, and counting them as kings ignores the prospect of succession through indirect and/or female lines, both of which are believed to have transpired. There were Kushite rulers in the Meroitic period who can be confidently established to have had non-ruling fathers.

List format and content

There is no universally used periodisation of Kushite history. This list uses the chronological scheme proposed by Emberling (2023), which divides Kushite history into the following four periods: Early Napatan (coalescence of Kushite political authority in Napata), Middle Napatan (from Alara to the end of Kushite dominion over Egypt), Late Napatan (after the loss of Egypt while royal burials continued at Napata), and Meroitic (royal burials at Meroë) periods. Precise regnal dates are not known for any Kushite monarchs after the end of Kushite dominion over Egypt. This list thus only includes approximate timeframes, cited to modern sources. Some older sources provide precise dates for each ruler. These dates usually derive from a speculative 1923 chronology by George Andrew Reisner, who based the dates on a handful of synchronisms with Egyptian history, used a wholly hypothetical average reign length of 15 years, and assigned longer reigns and shorter reigns based on the size and richness of burials. This list includes the tomb of each monarch (in the 'burial' column) and names them using abbreviations. The abbreviations are shorthands for the different Kushite burial pyramid complexes, with the numbers indicating a particular pyramid or temple. "Kur." stands for Kurru (i.e. El-Kurru) ,"Nu." stands for Nuri, "Bar." stands for Jebel Barkal, and "Beg." stands for Begrawiyah (Meroë). "Beg. N" and "Beg. S" refer to the northern and southern cemeteries of Meroë, respectively. El-Kurru, Nuri, and Jebel Barkal are all located by the ancient city of Napata; Meroë was a different city further south.

List of monarchs

Early Napatan period (1069–780 BCE)

The Early Napatan period began with Kush becoming autonomous or independent in the wake of the collapse of the New Kingdom of Egypt, c. 1069 BCE. The material from Kush during this time is extremely scant. There may have been several local Kushite political units, not properly unified into a single kingdom until the beginning of the later Middle Napatan period. During the Early Napatan period, political authority in the region slowly coalesced around Napata. The original royal cemetery of Napata (El-Kurru) contains several (unnamed) burials that are earlier in age than the later Middle Napatan period, perhaps the burials of local chieftains. These have sometimes been interpreted as the burials of around five generations of kings earlier than Alara, the earliest Kushite king known by name. Alara is however generally considered the founder of Kush by historians since he was referenced in the writings of later monarchs as a dynastic founder, in contexts suggesting that he also established the kingdom.

Middle Napatan period (780–656 BCE)

{{legend|#eef0d5|– Also pharaoh of Egypt (25th dynasty)}} The Middle Napatan period began with the rule of the earliest known named Kushite monarch, Alara, and encompassed the later period of Kushite rule over Egypt (as Ancient Egypt's 25th dynasty). This list includes the conventional speculative patrilineal relationships between some of the rulers; these are not accepted by all scholars and it is possible that as many as three intermarrying families were involved in the early stages of the kingdom.

Late Napatan period (656–270 BCE)

The Late Napatan period encompasses Kushite history after the loss of Egypt, for as long as Napata remained the site used for royal burials.

Meroitic period (270 BCE–350 CE)

In third century BCE, the royal burial ground was moved from Napata to Meroë for the burial of Arakamani. This marked the final step in a more gradual transfer of political authority and wealth to Meroë and is regarded as the beginning of the Meroitic period. The change in capital should not be misinterpreted as indicating a break in historical or cultural continuity; Napata continued to function as an important religious centre and evidence suggests that Meroë had been important from very early on. It is possible that Meroë served as the residence of the Kushite kings from as early as the fifth century BCE. From the 2nd century BCE onwards, Kush is noteworthy for a large number of queens regnant (queens ruling in their own right). Queens regnant retained their earlier style (often kandake) when becoming rulers, though they also adopted the kingly title of qore to indicate their new authority. Due to the high number of ruling queens in the Meroitic period, absent in earlier times, the gender of each monarch is here indicated by a gender symbol (♀ or ♂). In cases where the gender is unknown, no symbol is included. The royal succession, sequence, and chronology of Kushite rulers is especially uncertain in the Meroitic period. By necessity this list shows only one interpretation, though noteworthy alternate ideas are featured in footnotes. Given that the throne appears to have been able to pass through male, female, and indirect lines, this list simply records the parents (if known) of each monarch in the 'filiation' column, without speculation on their overall relations. The use of the ♔ symbol in this column indicates that the parent of a monarch was also a monarch. Beg. N 25 is the last known royal burial in Meroë and is assumed to mark the end of the dynasty ruling from that city. Circumstantial and indirect evidence also dates the end of Meroitic political authority to the middle decades of the fourth century CE.

Successor states of Kush

László Török hypothesised that a unified (Nubian?) 'Post-Meroitic successor state' ruled a territory roughly corresponding to the Kushite kingdom for several decades after the end of the Meroitic period. Such a realm may be indicated by later burials of elites at Ferkeh, Gemai, Qustul and El-Hobagi. Török suggested that these elites were non-royal deputies of a monarch residing in the south. The southern cemetery of Ballana, where seven generations of post-Kushite but pre-Christian rulers are buried, has sometimes been suggested to belong to a successor state of Kush, though the burials share few ideological similarities with those of the Kushite rulers beyond the presence of silver crowns in a similar style. The existence of a unified post-Meroitic state is not universally accepted. Josefine Kuckertz, for instance, instead dates the disintegration of the kingdom to already in the middle fourth century CE, at the same time as the fall of the Meroitic dynasty. Around 420 CE, the aforementioned elites or deputies began assuming royal insignia of their own, resulting in the disintegration of the supposed successor state (if one existed) into the later kingdoms of Nobatia (north), Makuria (center), and Alodia (south). Out of these three, Nobatia is in particular sometimes considered a small post-imperial remnant of Kush, maintaining some aspects of Kushite culture but also exhibiting Hellenistic and Roman influences. The early stage of Nobatia is conventionally associated with the Ballana cemetery.

Unattributed royal burials

There are many Kushite pyramids in addition to those listed above, built for individuals such as consorts, princes, and high officials. Because of the size and the number of chambers, some pyramids without preserved names have been suggested to have belonged to monarchs. Some such pyramids are included in the list above, with tentative and hypothetical attributions put forth by researchers. Other pyramids sometimes identified as belonging to rulers are listed below. There are no unattributed royal burials from El-Kurru or Nuri. Whether these pyramids belong to monarchs is often disputed. Pyramids thought to belong to rulers have sometimes been reinterpreted: Beg. S 10 was once attributed to King "Bartare-(Kalkai)" but is now recognised as the tomb of a non-ruling queen consort. These additional tombs should not be interpreted as on their own indicating additional Kushite rulers. In addition to possible misinterpretation, some tombs could match rulers whose burials are 'unidentified' in the list above and some of the tentative and hypothetical attributions listed above could be wrong.

Citations