Talk:Uruk

message: Mesh-ki-ag-gasher is a more appropriate form; Mec-ki-aj-gacer comes from the ETCSL encoding convention for ASCII representation of Sumerian transliteration. ()
Some rephrasing is needed for "brought the official kingship with him from the city of Eanna", as Eanna (named after the temple therein, "the House of Heaven"="the House of An") was just one of the two districts of Uruk, separated by the river; the other was Kulaba, which is also referred to in some Wikipedia articles. (Would it be better two write two stubs on Eanna and Kulaba, or redirect these two on Uruk?). In "Gilgamesh and Akka" (from the Sumerian Gilgamesh cycle), Gilgamesh is several times referred to as "Lord of Kulaba", which suggests there was originally two independent settlements. --Oop 10:29, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Lord of Kulaba, versus Mistress of Eanna (Inanna/Ishtar), right? I agree with the basic fact that two settlements grew together (with two quays, two centers of administration.) But in Sumerian society there was also the "En" versus "Nin" (masculine versus feminine), two distinct roles in city administration, (which is not to imply that the two roles were filled by people of corresponding sex.) Somewhere we have Bilgames/Gilgamesh promising Inanna/Ishtar that he won't pass judgement from the temple seat of Inanna. Alan Canon 17:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anointing king Mesh-Kiang-Gasher

message: Is it part of the transliteration?198.166.59.152 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the article mentioned anything at all about "Uruk period" - the nebulous, roughly defined archaeological theory - as opposed to Uruk - the actual, known city that definitely existed in a precise location, it would be better. But as it stands, this article is entirely 100% about Uruk, the historical city. I would suggest your "Neolithic timetable" might be more appropriate at Uruk period than here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  , After The Sumerian Translation 

message: 00:53, 22 January 2007 Codex Sinaiticus (Talk | contribs) (This is one specific, historic city in South Mesopotamia, no need to link all these global archaeological cultures when the article content is not related)
I would disagree with you. I've read a lot of stuff about the Uruk period which can be defined as an culture that spread and innovated civilization in the Mesopotamian region. Thus, not being just an historic city. The Uruk period is critical to the understanding of the rise of civilization, and with a table those interesting in placing the Uruk culture in a bigger picture could do that. It should not be several Uruk-artickles (1) the city, (2) the culture etc. I find the article conted very related.
Do you disagree Codex Sinaiticus?
raven_rs :)
:Well if the article mentioned anything at all about "Uruk period" - the nebulous, roughly defined archaeological theory - as opposed to Uruk - the actual, known city that definitely existed in a precise location, it would be better. But as it stands, this article is entirely 100% about Uruk, the historical city. I would suggest your "Neolithic timetable" might be more appropriate at Uruk period than here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing table placing the Uruk culture in a Neolithic timetable

message: "At its population height [WHICH WAS WHEN??] , Uruk probably had 50,000–80,000 residents living in 6 square kilometres of walled area, the largest city in the world at its time [AND THAT TIME WAS??]. Uruk represents one of the world's first cities, with a dense population. Uruk also saw the rise of the state in Mesopotamia with a full-time bureaucracy, military, and stratified society. Cities that coexisted at this time [WHICH IS WHAT TIME??] with Uruk were only about 10 hectares in area showing that is was vastly larger and more complex." 
GeneCallahan (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Census Date 

message: I did some edits to fix the problems with the dates and added the first citations also fixed some ambiguity in the growth section--Gurdjieff (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits for clarity 

message: Does anyone not believe that the Bible's Erech is Uruk? john k (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual belief doesn't matter - the issue is verifiability. There's a lot of assumptions out there, but what we need is a clear source in the cuneiform to indicate that the Uruk site is Erech.  Mdw0 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that even mean?  Erech is a place name in Genesis which apparently refers to a Sumerian city.  It's generally taken to refer to Uruk.  What exactly would constitute confirmation in the cuneiform?  The point isn't confirmation in the cuneiform.  The point is what scholars say.  As far as I'm aware, they all take "Erech" to refer to Uruk, just as they assume Babel refers to Babylon, for instance, or what have you.  Where is the controversy? john k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course I'm not fluent in Sumerian cuneiform, but if you can find a researcher who is, and who confirms that Uruk and Erech are definitely the same place rather than assuming I'd love to see it. I know that it's generally 'taken' to be the same place, but what proof is there? Of course there doesnt have to be a cuneiform 'quote' to be verifiable, but it would be great if there was one out there - a primary source (cunieform) beats a secondary source (historians writing about it) every time. What would constitute confirmation? Maybe a languages text which offers Uruk and Erech as translations of each other, or a description of Erech that puts it in the same area. Something from the period that confirms Erech is where Uruk is, and not an assumption made centuries later.  Mdw0 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholars consider them to be the same place - obviously the description of "Erech" in the Bible indicates that it's in "Shinar," which scholars take to apparently mean Babylonia.  There are no other cities in that region that are phonetically similar to "Erech".  Britannica's article on the city is actually at "Erech"!  Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia also indicate that the two names reference the same city.  Until fairly recently, "Erech" was used in English to refer to Uruk, so sure was everybody that the names meant the same thing.  I don't understand the resistance here.  This is not a wild guess.  It is generally agreed that the Biblical mention of "Erech" is identical to the Sumerian city of "Uruk".  This isn't controversial.  It ought to, at this point, be up to you to point out somebody who doubts the identification, given that all the general reference sources point to it without any further discussion. john k (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Erech" was the name assigned to this site when ANE archaeology was called, and considered, Biblical archaeology. The current reading of the cuneiform name for this city is now UNUG, moving even further away from the Biblical association. For all we know the Biblical tradition might have referred to traditions associated with this city, or another city associated with Nimrod, or more likely it is an amalgamation of different traditions. In any case, making sweeping associations between the Biblical Erech and this site would be original research. Emobatic (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can gather, "Unug" is the current understanding of the Sumerian name, but the Akkadian name is still taken to be Uruk.  And it would certainly not be original research to associate them, as they are certainly associated.  At the very least, listing Erech as a name in the beginning would not be inappropriate, because many older works call the site that, even if we maintain some ambiguity about whether the Biblical Erech actually is Uruk.  I still think that someone should provide some evidence of people who actually don't think Erech is Uruk before we act as though this is a controversial claim. john k (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a distinct lack of evidence, otherwise we'd have something by now. Like you I assumed they were the same place, but I had nothing to back it up. I'd have no problem at all saying they were 'associated' but then you'd have to site the lack of hard evidence weakening the association beyond credibility.  Mdw0 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I genuinely don't understand what people are talking about here.  Firstly: the lack of activity on a wikipedia page is not evidence of absence of evidence.  Secondly: I just don't understand what you are looking for here.  We have encyclopedias that give "Erech" as an alternative name for "Uruk."  They are, so far as I'm aware, basically phonetically identical.  When the Bible uses "Erech," it is clearly referring to a city in Mesopotamia.  Is there another candidate for the job?  What exactly would constitute evidence that they were the same place?  The basic issue is that Biblical references to "Erech" are taken to refer to Uruk.  Also that early archaeologists called Uruk "Erech" on this very basis.  Is either of these disputed?  Once again, who actually disagrees with this, besides Emobatic, who falsely claims that "Uruk" is not a correct name for the city? john k (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: We can make assumptions from now till doomsday, but there is a distinct lack of primary evidence coming forth from interested parties. Of course lack of evidence is not a disproof, but for a major article like this one we need something contemporary which proves Erech and Uruk are names of the same city. Mesopotamia is a big place, and when the Bible refers to Nimrud's second city, it is somewhat incongruous to think his second city was at the opposite end of Mesopotamia to Nineveh, with different kings and cities between them. Encyclopedias can be wrong, and biased in favour of scripture being literally accurate. If the source in the encyclopedias can be found then we can use it. On the other hand if the only reason some scholars refer to Uruk as Erech is because of a tenuous possible link in the Bible then further investigation is required to prove it. Assumptions need to be questioned and tested. You say the early archeologists referred to it as Erech. But why did they? Where is the evidence? Mdw0 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not Nimrod's "Erech" is in fact Uruk, Erech is undoubtedly a somewhat obsolescent alternative name for Uruk. So much so that the Britannica article is still actually called "Erech."  The Bible refers to Erech as Nimrod's second city after Babel (Baylon), not Nineveh, and lists it alongside Akkad, as well, which are both in the southern half of Mesopotamia.  The Assyrian cities are listed in the next verse.  Beyond that, you say I need to cite sources, or find primary sources that support the identification.  But that's not how it works.  There are tons of sources which unproblematically associate the Biblical name "Erech" with the city of "Uruk".  What you need to find is somebody who actively disputes that identification.  Otherwise it's noncontroversial. john k (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem with that being in the text, the fact that its referred to as Erech. It would just be nice to have more definitive proof.  Mdw0 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erech 

message: In which municipal district of Muthanna is Uruk located in? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Uruk Location

message: Looks good. Might want to take a look at Warka Vase, Mask of Warka
and Short chronology timeline. I would say "mask" could be put in for deletion,
"vase" could either be folded into Uruk or pointed to in the text or See Also, and
"chronology" could just go on the See Also list. Minor.
Ploversegg (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Changes 

message: Deletion is proposed and discussed at : :commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eanna4composite.svg . Teofilo talk 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Eanna4composite.svg]] proposed for deletion 

message: :The Arabic name for Uruk is Warkā'. Uruk was discovered in modern times in 1849. the name 'Iraq' was used a geographic name for at least 1300 years, but doesn't date back into antiquity.
:The name Iraq comes from Middle Persian, 'Eragh', meaning lowlands, and historically included areas in what is now southern Iraq and low-lying parts of Iran as well (Eilers 1983, 481).
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Uruk' is not the etymology for 'Iraq'. 

message: Now I don't know if this would be all that notable, and even if it was, whether it would fit here, anywhere. But there are people, me included, who instead of considering the date as 2010 from the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, consider it 7033 from the founding of Uruk and thereby notable human civilization. So... Just thought I'd put that out there.99.229.252.229 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 7033, date

message: I find nearly nothing here about "building C", it is not in the legenda of the picture. It is called "temple C" by the archaeologists and some people think it is the most beautyful temples there. --Dlugacz (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building C 

message: Hi everyone. Can somebody possibly help understanding what Harmansah, 2007 is. i s not a "conventional way" o list a source at all and some data is used from there that makes absolutely no sense. like 80 000 inhabitants in the bronze period. Sounds absurd because these many inhabitants in a city are very rare even in middle ages. 
Can anybody explain this "source"?
Algaze (2013), basing estimates on Nissen (2003), suggests an Uruk metro area population of 80-90,000 people in the late period (second half of fourth millennium). References:
Algaze, Guillermo. 2013. "The end of prehistory and the Uruk period." In The Sumerian World, ed. Harriet Crawford. London: Routledge, pp. 68-94.
Nissen, H.-J. 2003. "Uruk and the Formation of the City." In Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, ed. J. Aruz. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 11-20. Bapu vaitla (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Harmansah, 2007" source (?) 

message: I'm interested in the actual age of the oldest writing. Has it been carbon dated, and if so, reliably? The reason is that someone I know keeps saying that the oldest writing is Mesopotamian (without ever sourcing his claim, of course). However, the oldest Egyptian writing is dated to the 34th century BC and King Scorpion. These were pictographs, which very quickly turned into Hieroglyphs in the 32nd century BC. I'm not finding a similar development of Cuneiform from pictographs to the stylized cuneiform, before that date. In fact Mesopotamiam writing goes from pictographs to cuneiform in the 26th century BC. I take it there is no evidence of Egyptian pictographs being based on Mesopotamian pictigraphs? So what exactly is the claim that Egyptian writing came from Mesopotamia and therefore isnot the oldest, based on? MrSativa (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Writing 

message: I only wish to contribute that archaeologist David W. Anthony states in a book I'm reading on a different region's archaeology that the information on Uruk in this article "has been completely rewritten" in recent times.  Anthony's information relying on North Mesopotamian and European archaeology as well as pre-Persian archaeology describes a period from 3,700 BCE to 3,100 BCE when Uruk and Ur were the urban anchors of an extensive trade and resource extraction network that involved significant mass-production of finished goods found in burials in Susa, Arslantepe, and Maikop while sourcing gems from as far away as land in today's Tajikistan.  My long-term observation of Wikipedia is that all trace of these remarks I'm making will be obliterated by personally offended young residents of New York City who personally don't like the plausibility that what I'm saying has been commercially print-published in a legitimate source of information for a Wikipedia article, by Princeton University Press, so I'm not squandering my own resources editing this article; but if I'm wrong then perhaps the thirty-years-out-of-date information in this article could be updated by means of reliance on more recent science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.39.188 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplementary Information

message: The two translations are mistakenly exchanged. I am not able to manage these confused codings.HJHolm (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong translation from Arabic 

message: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White_Temple_ziggurat_in_Uruk.jpg
The photo linked above is claimed in the article to depict the White Temple, which was located in the Anu District. In reality it shows the Eanna Ziggurat, located in the Eanna District. 79.167.148.97 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following photo does not depict the White Temple