Talk:Ur

"Kasidim" equals Kassites?

"The Kasidim could also refer to the Kassites who were present during the time during which the Exodus occured." Has any historian or archaeologist made this connection? Or is it 19th-century Bible-talk? A source or reference for this would make it more encyclopediable, though a religious website would not be very helpful. Anything? --Wetman 13:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

January 2004 entry

I think its great someone cared to edit this entry. I specified tried to write it in 3rd person so others could modify it (especially for grammar). I also largely avoided to make personal opinions, but tried to only report what I saw. I think the latest edit of it, is great, but I also think it has lost some references and some of it is actually not true anymore.

• The tourist part now is a blunt statement. Anyone, say western reading this, with no personal knowledge of this, will think “ahhh that must be like visiting the British museum”. When the fact is, it is pretty far from it. That is why a specified made a reference to Egypt. A place with similarly culture (at least compared to western), and chances is many more people have visited. If somebody reference to Egypt’s tourism as industrial and have visited a western major tourist place, they are more likely to understand the huge different between UR tourism and visiting the British museum. I think the current wording is misleading.
• The graffiti part is now not true. It should be reversed, as it is mostly with pens and occasionally carved. (Except the Ziggurat)
• It is a fact that nobody knows how the top of the Ziggurat is supposed to look.
• The part of the helicopters comes over incorrect to me. I’m not sure what is wrong with the wording??
• Consolidations of the grave, is an opinion maybe. But anyone seeing it in the real will arrive at the same thought, in seconds. And if the graves some day collapses, this is exactly the kind of information people will be looking for “at what time was the graves in what shape”
• That part of the walls of the graves being filled with pottery debris is also fact. It can un-doubtful be worded better (I’m not an English speaker), but it is 100% facts and I can prove it (Photos). I don’t see why the whole section had to be chopped?

I'm not sure if I should just edit, since I am the original writer of it and it may get the impression that i'm bias and just want my version. Twthmoses 00:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The editing of your on-site report seemed a little harsh, but you get the idea:slightly more formal in approach and less personal. Do correct the text so it's accurate. --Wetman 03:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction

Corrected mistake showing Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon in 639 BC. Changed it to 539 BC. -- Mkofron 09:05 UTC 4/28/05

Falsified Genesis quote

I hope that everyone can detect the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in which a quote from Genesis is made to look more historical in the following:

In Genesis xi. 28 and 31 and xv. 7, Ur is described as the birthplace of Abraham, the largest city of Shinar or northern Chaldea, and the principal commercial centre of the country as well as the centre of political power.

This is not in fact how Ur is described in the Genesis quotes, which are alluded to but not actually exhibited. This is a very familiar technique, which everyone should be aware of. I've left it untouched in the text as a characteristic example. Anyone may edit it out if they like, of course --Wetman 04:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what “rhetorical sleight-of-hand” means, but you are indeed correct this is not what the OT says about UR. In fact is does not even specified say that Abraham is born in UR. Neither does it mention anything about largest city, Shinar (in connection with UR), principal commercial centre or centre of political power. Twthmoses 15:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

just to clarifie something, is this the old testiment from the many many times retranlated modern bible or the original jewish texts, im not being sinicle or anything but the wording of the original texts may well suport the quotation. im no expert but is there anyone who has read less recent translations of the old testiment to see if this is so? just a thaught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.218.163 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Great Ziggurat reconstructed?

Great Soviet Encyclopedia has a label 'reconstruction' under the drawing of this ziggurat. It should be cleared out whether it is ancient building or modern reconstruction Ilya K 18:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the illustration is a drawing that shows a crisp, clean ziggurat, perhaps with people walking about, then it is the illustration that is the reconstruction, a commonplace when explaining constructions that are in ruinous condition. If it's a photo, then we have a question still. --Wetman 20:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The basic structure you see today is largely of ancient making. I have a lot of photos from the 20’s and 30’s while those show a lot more sand and more damage to the outer walls and especially the top looks more in disorder, it is basically the same as today. There has been some repairing done that is for certain, but while I was there I did not notice any stones of newer making use to do that. I think they simply put some of the stone that had fallen down in their place again. Asphalt and tar is all over the place and only a few place can you see modern mortar (reparing), but you actually have to look for it to see it.

I think it’s not unlike the sites in Egypt. If you see photos from the 70’s and compare them with today you can clearly see repairing and consolidation have been done, but they are still ancient temples.

I would like to show it by uploading some examples, but I don’t know where I got the photos so I can't tag them proper, other then they are from the British excavation in the 20’s and 30’s (had them for years) and I got a few from the 50's and 60’s I think and compare them to 2004 pictures.Twthmoses 00:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was not cautious, that drawing has a temple on the base, while photo doesn't Ilya K 08:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Error in coordinates?

I'm afraid that clicking on the coordinates returns an 'out of range' error.

Coordinates corrected

I changed the coordinates to the required deg / min format and set them to center on the Ziggurat. User:David.c.h 10 October 2005

Etymology of Ur

Ur means "city' in Sumerian.

But, I 'll suggest an other etymology.

Ur, Ur-uk, Sur-rupak, Er-idu, (Plus compare: greek name "Er-ytra sea" = modern Persian Gulf). What's happen?

Is it possible that these cities may found, in the ante-deluvian era (i.e. 4th or 5th millennium B.C.), by some proto-Hurrians (a hemi-indoeuropean but not semitic people)?

--IonnKorr 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Ur Section

This has been put back although the info is in the Ur Kasdim article. Does it really belong here seeing that as is explained in the Ur Kasdim article, it is not known with certainty that Sumerian Ur was Ur Kasdim, its simply the most favoured conjecture? Kuratowski's Ghost 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 Entry

Can somebody explain to me the "rumor" about Tallil Airbase overseeing Ur? Maybe I am not reading the entry right, but Tallil is a stone throw away from Ur. You can see this by using Google Maps, Earth or any other mapping software. Now, if the meaning is that Tallil Aribase is conducting surveillance of the site? That's not a rumor either. Ur falls under the area of operations/interest for that particular base. Surveillance of nearby sites is not suspected, it is expected. user:jerry.mills

Why not bring the text into line with these facts?--Wetman 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of this city is not even 'Ur'

The city is named as 'Urima' in Sumerian cuneiform, and 'Uriwa' in Akkadian cuneiform. No inscriptions have been found naming this city as being "of the Chaldeans". Abraham's 'Ur', which is related to the word in Hebrew for 'fire' or 'light', not 'city', should be searched for in the area which the Bible says is his 'land of nativity', Aram Naharayim, i.e. northern Mesopotamia...not the Biblical Shinar, i.e. Sumer

Removed unsourced rumor data in 2004 Entry

Just removed information about rumors that Talil AB is watching the site. It is not a rumor. - Jerry.mills 05:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Should "All About Archeology" be in the list?

The "All About Archeology" site has a little bit of information about Ur. However, the site is not particularly about archeology -- it's a proselytizing site. I haven't looked closely at the site, but I would be shocked if the site mentioned anything that disagreed with (their interpretation of) the Bible. Should the site be listed as a reference? Chip Unicorn 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the Jewish Encyclopedia is already listed. You could use exactly the same argument to get rid of that source. But this is wikipedia, so in the interest of neutrality I don't think we are going to get rid of either one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Population estimate

The text "Ur at its height had around 30,000 residents' has been deleted by someone. Perhaps a better estimate could be quoted. --Wetman 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update?

The article should be updated: "Fly into the American air base of Tallil outside Nasiriya in central Iraq and the flight path is over the great ziggurat of Ur, reputedly the earliest city on earth. Seen from the base in the desert haze or the sand-filled gloom of dusk, the structure is indistinguishable from the mounds of fuel dumps, stores and hangars. Ur is safe within the base compound. But its walls are pockmarked with wartime shrapnel and a blockhouse is being built over an adjacent archaeological site. When the head of Iraq's supposedly sovereign board of antiquities and heritage, Abbas al-Hussaini, tried to inspect the site recently, the Americans refused him access to his own most important monument." (Simon Jenkins in The Guardian, June 8, 2007). --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this hoax

I understand the hoax part but the original said that the ziggurat area was closed off to the public. I'm not sure that was useful information even if true, but it had been there awhile without the nonsense of yesterday. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

As of May the area of the ziggurat is entirely closed off to the public because of the recent discovery of the giant human skeleton found. Nobody at all has access to this area, including personnel from nearby Camp Adder. The owners of this area have hired famed archaeologists to find out more of these remains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.68.125 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you give sources for this statement?? I have no idea where you are getting this from, and it is complete rubbish. There have been no excavations at Ur in decades, and there won't be any new excavations in the first few years either. As for the "giant human skeleton", I really wonder what you are talking about ... Srenette (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)srenette

This comment is over 2 years old, the editor long gone. Probably refers to some television or other media nonsense. I have seen this someplace but it is bogus. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Was the cuneiform ever correct?

Looking at the history, I doubt the cuneiform rendering of the name was ever even close to being correct (it should be hex code points, instead of just 'x') and I think it should be removed until someone with knowledge can add it back in correctly. (I know the mechanism but I don't know the correct characters and I refuse to guess.) --chbarts (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given the spelling according to the ETCSL, which is generally a good source. --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The rendering of the cuneiform as 'Urim' is generally considered the most reliable. However, attempting to read the name as 'Ur', so as to connect it to the Biblical Ur, is definitely a stretch. The name of the city was 'Urim', and there is no reliable evidence for any other name.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The connection between Ur and Urim may not be a universal consensus, but it isn't something that was just invented out of the blue by Wikipedia either. There are reliable sources for all points of view. 70.105.51.86 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning the connection in the text, but perhaps not in the headline.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Access

This seems entirely too chatty, Wiki-Travelish, unencyclopedic and blogish IMO. I think it should be drastically modified and much of it deleted. What's left should go into a site description. We really should not care whether we can visit the site or not. I expect a site on the moon or at the Antarctic or in Orlando, to be equally and logically described without a lot of touristy info. Student7 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written this section to encyclopedic standards. Not a travelog nor WikiTravel either. Please see Acropolis of Athens for comparison, a well-traveled site. The section here is still a bit too "chatty" and blogish. Student7 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Resume" work

This needs a lead-in explanatory sentence which maybe the footnote has already. Presumably the US Army was there as a result of the war in 2003. Why did they remain? To protect the ruins? Student7 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The University of Pennsylvania excavated there until 1934. As far as I know there have been no ecavations since, though its always possible that the Iraqis did some work at some point and didn't publish it. Now the university is starting excavations again, which would seem to be a good case for the use of the word resume. :-) I don't think the US Army is involved. Note that the entire Archaeology section was a complete mess and I have been slowly fixing it up. At the end there will be a last pass of wordsmithing to polish it up.Ploversegg (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

Just for your information, at this time there is NO archaeological work being done at Ur. I think the agreement you refer to was to confirm the connection between Ur and the University of Pennsylvania, but was primarily aimed at conservation, not excavation (but I don't know the details of the agreement). So perhaps it is necessary to change the phrasing in the article, since now it is giving the impression that there are ongoing excavations at Ur again, which is not the case and which will probably not happen any time soon. If there would be excavations at Ur now, I would know and I would be digging there! :) Srenette (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)srenette

I see what you mean by the wording. It says "archaeological work" which could mean classifying stuff that has already been excavated, but what do I know? If you think it needs rewording to clarify, go ahead. No point in digging up more than can be examined, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No work at all is taking place on the site of Ur. As for analysis of excavated material from the old excavations, nothing really significant is going on right now. Needless to say though that there is still tons of work to be done at Ur (as on every site in Iraq for a very long time to come), but it is not happening for very obvious reasons. That being said, soon excavations will start on a small site close to Ur, but this is not worth mentioning yet since nothing has taken place so far. Srenette (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)srenette

?Historical Data

I noticed that all information on Ur's historical background has been removed. What gives? Where did all that info go?

A vandal removed it, I've replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You "da boss"! :D <Jerodian> (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference to supposed connection with 'Biblical Hebrew: Ur' should be removed from headline

and placed in the section on 'Biblical Ur', where it should be emphasized that the identification with Biblical 'Ur Kasdim' is popular, but disputed. It is a fact that that Sumerian/Akkadian cuneiform name of the city was 'Urim'. However, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this city is to be identified with Biblical Ur, and none of the cuneiform tablets excavated at Urim identifies it as a city "of the Chaldees".

Biblical references to early Hebrew origins repeatedly point to the region of 'Aram Naharaim', an entirely different region from historical Sumer, Akkad, and Babylon.

Even the British Museum, which co-led the excavations at Urim during the '20s, has this to say about the subject:

"Although Ur is famous as the home of the Old Testament patriarch Abraham (Genesis 11:29-32), there is no actual proof that Tell el-Muqayyar was identical with 'Ur of the Chaldees'. In antiquity the city was known as Urim."

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/u/ur.aspx

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ur was not the "city of the Chaldees." They took over later when the bible was actually written down. There was no scribe following Abraham, nor is there any indication that he left memoirs. It made no sense to tell some nomad that it was the city of somebody else before it became the city of the Chaldees. So the biblical reference is out of date (updated), as it were. Ostensibly the Chaldees took over the city intact. Student7 (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a tempting, and indeed commonly cited, solution to the problem of the Biblical term 'Ur Kasdim', Kasdim being the Hebrew term for Chaldeans. However, there are several factors that seem to counter this. First, the Hebrew Bible identifies one 'Kesed' (of which 'Kasdim' (Chaldeans) is etymologically a gentilic form) together with 'Aram' as offspring of Abraham's brother Nahor in Genesis 22:22, in the region of Haran in Aram Naharaim (upper Mesopotamia). Second, when later books of the Bible speak of the Kasdim, or Chaldeans, there seems to be indication of a knowledge of their tribal origin being outside of Babylonia, such as Isaiah 23:13. Third, whenever Genesis refers to the cities of Babylonia/Sumer, it uses the term "Land of Shin'ar", which is never used in references to Abraham's Ur or the origin of the Hebrews. Fourth, the Akkadian name 'Kaldu' from the neo-Assyrian period is the main source of the term 'Chaldean' that occurs in all other languages, except for the Hebrew 'Kasdim', which is commonly cited by scholars as being of a more primitive form. Fourth, the narrative in Genesis gives no indication that Abraham's Ur and Haran were to be found in different regions. In fact, the opposite is the case. In Genesis 12, Abraham is commanded to leave his country, nativity, and father's house AFTER settling in Haran and the death of his father, not before leaving Ur. Once he reaches Canaan, the text says "So Abram journeyed, going on still toward the South", which would be perplexing if his journey began due east in Sumer. Then in Genesis 24, Abraham commands his servant Eliezer to go back to "the land of my nativity" to his own people to get a wife for his son Isaac, he sends him to Aram Naharaim to the town of Nahor, in the vicinity of Haran (same place where Jacob is later sent by his parents to fetch a wife for himself). The various information provided in Genesis 24 is in fact very clear that the ultimate origin of Abraham, his family, and his people (the Hebrews) is to be found in this region, and not in the metropoli by the waters of Babylon, or in Sumerian Urim, the Venice of its day. Deuteronomy 26:5 further characterization the Hebrew patrimony as "my father was a wandering Aramean" bolsters that identification.

Finally, while the Pentateuch does contain a number of anachronisms in a pre-exilic time frame, the insertion of a post-exilic anachronism such as 'Kasdim' to mean 'Babylonian' into a Genesis text is unprecedented and would have raised immediate red flags at the time of the Torah's canonization. It should be borne in mind that while the Pentateuch was canonized after the Exile, it was based on texts that were already in existence and revered for their antiquity, written down in classical Hebrew that was no longer the vernacular in the post-Exilic era.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting research. However, any demurral to this being the biblical Ur must come from WP:RELY scholars. These scholars should be neutral WP:NPOV on proving anything about the bible itself! "The bible is always true." "The bible is seldom true." Neither one. Neutral. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Akkadian name of Ur is URI or URIM (from Sumerian URIM), not "URU"

The Sumerian/Akkadian cuneiform "Uru" means "city", or rather the determinative "city of..." It is not the Akkadian name for Ur. This is a misconception based on old readings, dating back to the 19th century.

They have since been comprehensively debunked and revised, and the correct transliteration in Akkadian cuneiform, is URI2 (=URIM2), as shown in "An Akkadian handbook: paradigms, helps, glossary, logograms, and sign list", by Miller and Schipp (Part 3: Glossary of Proper Names).

This is further confirmed in "Dictionary of the Bible", by John L. McKenzie, the "Mercer Dictionary of the Bible", by Mills and Bullard.

It is also confirmed on the Unniversity of Pennsylvania Akkadian language Proper Noun Glossary, where it is indicated either as Urim or as Uri.

http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/cbd/qpn/onebigfile.html

All transcriptions of the Cyrus Cylinder also indicate the transliteration ÚRI for the name of "Ur".

See Hanspeter Schaudig, 2001: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html#TEXT

See also Rawlinson/Rogers, 1912: http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/cyrus.html

In the "Letter of Gilgamesh", in the Akkadian language of the neo-Assyrian period, Gilgamesh refers to himself as "Sar Urim, Mar Kullab", "King of Ur, native of Kullab".

It is clear that the cuneiform name of Ur was Urim in both Sumerian and Akkadian, though occasionally this was reduced in Akkadian to Uri.

Please leave my edits in place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.49.193 (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It is undisputed that the name was written with the sign URI2=URIM2. This doesn't tell us anything about pronunciation in either Sumerian or Akkadian. If you want to argue that the Akkadian pronunciation was uri, you should present references to that effect, not references that point out that it is spelled URI2. Your statement "the cuneiform name of Ur was Urim in both Sumerian and Akkadian" doesn't even begin to make sense. Did you even read the reference cited? It says that Sumerian Urum or Urim was interpreted as mimated nominal form in Akkadian, which left Uru as the Semitic nominative. This has nothing to do with Sumerian uru "city", it is a stem Ur- with a Semitic nominative Uru. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I did see the reference you cited, and the information you are reproducing is given there only in the form of speculation about a supposed pronunciation of the cuneiform, "which may have been taken in mimation in Akkadian leaving only Uru<>Ur".

The evidence from cuneiform does not point to a pronunciation "Uru". There certainly is no evidence in the cuneiform that city was called "Ur", nor that the stem was "Ur"; the stable nucleus of all transcriptions of the name in Akkadian and Sumerian is Uri(m), and as I said the transciption "Uru" dates back to preliminary readings from the 19th century which have since been debunked and replaced.

The contention that the name "Urim" was interpreted as mimated form to leave "Uru" in Semitic nominative is contradicted by the explanation given in "A structural grammar of Babylonian", by G. Buccellati, pg. 217, that almost all Akkadian names and etymologically foreign names (i.e. non-Akkadian) such as "Hammurapi" and "Urim" were invariable in Akkadian, i.e. they were not inflected and were not reduced into a shortened nominative form.

The example provided in the trasliteration ÚRI from the Cyrus cylinder represents an actual pronunciation, not merely the name of a cuneiform symbol.

In the Gurney transliteration of the "Letter of Gilgamesh", it is also given as "Uri".

In the Akkadian language Prologue of the Code of Hammurapi ("Cuneiform parallels to the Old Testament", R.W. Rogers, pg. 399), the Akkadian reading of name for Ur is given as "Urim".

The cuneiform SES.UNUG.KI for Ur is interpreted In Borger, 1977 and "Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (University of Chiacago, 1961) in pg. 77 as Uri(m).

In summary all the evidence points to a consistent pronunciation of "Uri(m)" in Sumerian and Akkadian, and the speculation that the name was taken as a mimation in Akkadian and reduced to a nominative form "Uru", and then further reduced to a supposed Semitic stem "Ur" does not appear to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.49.193 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Giving an accurate description of Ur

As part of an assignment for one of my classes in Graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania, I have to edit a wikipedia site. Since I am specializing in Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, and have some knowledge of Sumerian, I decided to edit the Ur website. The current entry is completely inaccurate. The third millennium BC is the EARLY Bronze Age, not the Middle! The interpretation given on Dumuzi's Dream is completely random and false. We just analyzed that text all last semester, and it has nothing to do with people rising up against a king because of a famine, and in any case, the text is not about Ur at all, Ur is only one of the many cities mentioned in the text. I am currently working with actual material from Ur at the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and I work in concordance with Prof. Zettler who is arguably one of the world's specialists on Ur. I resent the fact therefore that you refer to my changes as "babble"! If anything, I should have changed a lot more since most of what is there should be contextualized and described in a much more accurate way, but I am too busy to spent two entire days on this thing. Unfortunately most of the wikipedia entries on anything from ancient Iraq is horrible, inaccurate, or simply wrong. I can recommend you good and up-to-date references to write decent entries, instead of books called "The Bible as History" or random sources from the 1920s!

Ive restored your edits. I do not understand why your edits were reverted that way. You did remove some text (and the one cite I checked doesn't exist and was probably a misuse of a primary source as we generally like to use secondary sources (see WP:RS. I see no babble and I'm sorry that the editor saw fit to add such an edit summary. By the way, you need to sign your posts with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for "biting the newbie" and hope to see you become a steady and happy wikipedia contributor. With respect I would however like to debate your assertion about the content of the Dumuzid text, an early reference to Ur's existence that you removed from the article. The links to early Ur kings Meskalamdug and Akalamdug need to be in this article as well. The tablet in question is here.

... "Those who come for the king are a motley crew, who know not food, who know not drink, who eat no sprinkled flour, who drink no poured water, who accept no pleasant gifts, who do not enjoy a wife's embraces, who never kiss dear little children, who never chew sharp-tasting garlic, who eat no fish, who eat no leeks. There were two men of Adab who came for the king. They were thistles in dried-up waters, they were thorns in stinking waters -- 'his hand was on the table, his tongue was in the palace' (Alludes to a proverb) . Then there were two men of Akšak who came for the king, with …… carried on their shoulders. Then there were two men of Unug who came for the king. With head-smashing clubs tied to their waists, there were two men of Urim who came for the king. With {shining} {(1 ms. has instead:) clean} clothes on the quayside, there were two men of Nibru who came for the king. Crying "Man run after man!", they came to the sheepfold and cow-pen." ...

I am sorry your school spent a semester analyzing that text and concluded that it "has nothing to do with people rising up against a king because of a famine". With respect to your classroom's own analysis, I beg to differ though. This is one of the very earliest Sumerian myths, or at least a myth about prehistoric or the earliest historic times, since "Dumuzid king of Uruk" was even before Gilgamesh, and supposedly preceded only by Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, and "Dumuzid the Shepherd" is even placed in the Sumerian antediluvian list. So why wouldn't the fact that Ur is thus mentioned along with Adab, Akshak, Uruk and Nippur in the reign of "Dumuzid", be of legitimate concern enough to mention in the topic? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a part included discussing the kings we know by name and I encourage you to add it. However, this also touches on the other part of your comment. The Sumerian Kinglist and mythological stories are NOT accurate historical documents. We know Meskalamdug and Akalamdug from the Royal Cemetery, although they are not even mentioned in that King List. Dumuzid was a deity, the spouse of Inanna. I know the King List refers to him as a king of Uruk in prediluvian times, but again, remember that the King List is NOT a historical document, but a propagandistic fabrication derived from numerous oral traditions and mythologies. We do not know any kings of those ancient times! So, that being said, Dumuzid is a deity, spouse of Inanna, and the text Dumuzid's Dream does not talk about him as the king of Uruk. The text fits within a large cycle of mythological texts around Inanna and Dumuzid. Furthermore the text dates to the Old-Babylonian period, although of course it might go back to older myths. But it definitely is not an accurate historical document talking about early Ur! Better evidence for early Ur are the City Seals which actually do date to early third millennium!

Again, I encourage everyone to read about this and to add information. But I do oppose against wrong facts and misleading statements. There is a good deal of modern literature available from the past decade. But I do admit it is perhaps not the easiest to find. Good luck.

Sorry, I don't follow how you can claim the text Dumuzid's Dream does not refer to Dumuzid as King of Uruk, when that is exactly what it does portray him as. And anyone may click the link to the translation above to verify that. Certainly, sources could even be found demonstrating that one scholarly theory or opinion is that the Dumuzid(s) from the Sumerian kinglist was/were deified as a later development. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact remains that this is definitely not the scholarly consensus regarding the interpretation of this text. First of all that translation is not very accurate, which you would know if you would read the Sumerian original. Secondly, according to my understanding Wikipedia is not about posting our own opinion and interpretations, but to gather factual evidence. If you are going to put up texts in which Ur appears, then list all of them (that should take you a couple of months).

You keep assuming that the Sumerian King List is an accurate portrayal of history. It is far from accepted that even Gilgamesh really existed. Dumuzid (which means "the true son") is part of the Sumerian pantheon, not a deified king. He was the lover of Inanna (later Ishtar), and Geshtin-Ana which appears in that text was another deity, his sister. I recommend reading about the Dumuzid and Inanna cycle and the interpretations of it (recent studies!). In this text he is named king (LUGAL, which means "big man", ruler) just as other deities would be called king. You simply can not take the Sumerian King List as historical evidence for those king names, especially not the prediluvian ones. Your argument seems to be: Dumuzid was one of the first kings in Mesopotamia in very ancient times, and in one text Ur is mentioned in association, so therefore this is evidence that Ur was a city already then ... This entire construction is yours alone and based on very flawed interpretation of these sources, I am sorry to say. As I said, if you want evidence for Ur's early existence and importance, refer to archaeology and the city seals. Don't use mythological texts which date from the Old-Babylonian Period (second millennium BC!) which are often a result of intense propaganda which originated at Ur, and don't use the Sumerian King List as reality because it is not. The King List is another piece of propaganda constructed again under the Third Dynasty of Ur most probably, and used again as propaganda by the rulers of Isin later on. This is obvious from the fact that the important kings of Lagash are nowhere mentioned, because they were rivals of Ur, and later associated with Larsa, the rivals of Isin. Or are you going to assume the regnal dates of the kings in the King List are accurate as well?

All in all, the text Dumuzids Dream has no direct relation to the city of Ur. It is a very interesting mythological text which obviously refers to real cities since that is its cultural context. It is by no means a direct historical source, it dates to a much later date (at least 1000 years) than any date you might possible propose for a supposed rule of a supposed king called Dumuzid, and it is a myth, nothing more, nothing less.

The things I put on are only factual data, no interpretations of my own. I left several things on there which I have serious doubts about (like your claim that all houses at Ur under Ur-Nammu were villas with 14 rooms ...), but I remained conservative in my editing. I wish I could write a more extensive text, but I don't have the time unfortunately. But if anyone wants to write a comprehensive text about Ur for Wikipedia, I highly encourage to use recent sources, especially the books "Art of the First Cities" and "The Treasures of the Royal Tombs of Ur" with all the references therein. Also Postgates' "Early Mesopotamia" is a great source, although already a bit outdated by now. Any source from the '20s can only be used to talk about the archaeological background and the history of the archaeological discipline. There is a lot of misinformation out there. So for this wikipedia entry, and any other related to my field of research (the Ancient Near East), I plead everyone to use those up to date academic (yet reader friendly) sources, and to refrain from wild speculations and interpretations based on a very poor understanding of the context as yours of the text Dumuzids Dream. The translations you find online (or even in many books) are often very flawed and highly speculative, and the texts are very difficult to understand and interpret without knowledge of the entire historical, cultural, and social background and without a knowledge of the complete corpus of the texts. Dumuzids Dream is NOT a third millennium historical text, nor is the Sumerian King List.

Dear oh dear. I have not "assumed" anything. I'm merely trying to figure out where your POV is coming from where you can make blatantly false statements like "this text makes no mention about Dumuzid being the King of Uruk" then when pointed out where it does say precisely this in no unequivocal terms, your argument seems to be that you (or your classmates?) can read the Sumerian better than the ectsl website, and that it doesn't really mean that at all. Okay, color me confused. But if you have no logical arguments to make that I can follow, I think I am going to restore the deleted references to Ur since this is significant, and you have found only the flimsiest of pretexts that don't make any sense for pulling this data. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I pondered this overnight and think I may have figured out what your argument is saying about Dumuzid. Something like "Yes we know the Sumerian king list names Dumuzid as a king. But we all know he was really a god, so this evidence ought to be completely ignored. And yes, the other source of information on what the Sumerians believed about Dumuzid (the Dumuzid cycle of epics), also describes him as a king. But once again, this evidence can be thrown out and overruled, because after all - we all know he was really a god." Hmmm... Certain it is that the Babylonians worshipped him as a god, i.e. Tammuz. But if the Babylonians wanted to eliminate all Sumerian references to him as having been a king of Uruk (and Gilgamesh's immediate predecessor), they should have done so 3,000 years ago; it would be way too late for them to start trying now! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: You are presumably aware of how much has been made of the fact that the kinglist describes king Dumuzid of Uruk as singlehandedly capturing Enmebaragesi of Kish -- who is known certainly to have been a real person. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumuzid appears twice in the King List, each time as divine. He rules for thousands of years. It doesn't say anywhere he captured Enmebaragesi. As for the ETCSL, it was actually set up in part by my professor Sumerian here, Dr. S.Tinney, who also runs the ePSD (the online Sumerian dictionary) and is very involved in the CDLI (the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative). Sumerian is a very difficult language, and yes the translations are but one version. The ones online are often outdated versions (although by brilliant scholars in their time decades ago). The text DOES say lugal, so it does describe Dumuzid at one point in the text as king. This does NOT mean that he actually was a real king in Sumer!! Zeus is described as king, yet he never existed! Many deities are referred to as king, the christian deity is referred to as king, Jesus is referred to as king, in many religions deities are referred to as kings.

My "argument" is nothing more but pointing out to you that the Sumerian King List is NOT an account of history! And that a text such as Dumuzids Dream is NOT an account of history! The first is a piece of propaganda constructed at the very end of the third millennium BC, which includes many different mythologies and oral traditions of real kings. Note how the King List leaves out other real historical figures who actually were king! Also note how it says kings ruled for thousands of years. Also note how it talks about a supposed Flood sweaping over the earth (which never happened). Also note other weird things, such as Kulaba the female bartender becoming queen for a 100 years! ... Dumuzid IS a god, I can't believe you have a problem with that. He IS one of the important Sumerian deities, the god of shepherds, the lover of Inanna. This mythological couple (which in essence represent animal herding and agriculture in unity and tension) had its roots in Uruk. Read J.Black & A.Green 1992, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia if you don't believe me ... Stop adhering to some random interpretation you put in your mind!

You simply can not make the difference between mythology and history, and you fail to grasp the cultural context in which these texts were created. I appreciate amateurs taking a sincere interest, but in no way does reading a bit online and some outdated books replace scholarship which involves years of hard study. I invite you to visit Philadelphia and to visit the wonderful Sumerian collection we have here. I can even show you around myself. The University of Pennsylvania is not just some random school, it is at the heart of Ancient Near Eastern studies, both archaeology and Assyriology/Sumerology! I can show you the tablet collection here which is one of the most important in the world, you can hold some cuneiform tablets in your hand if you would come here, I invite you. If you are prepared to really learn more about these matters, let me know and a fascinating world can be opened up to you or anyone else. But don't be so incredibly stubborn about taking the Sumerian King List and a mythological text (which is nothing more but mythology! it is not reality!) as accurate history, just based on your readings of some online sources.

IN CONCLUSION, Sumerian King List is NOT an accurate account of history! Last time I have to say that I hope ... Stop acting as if I am some random amateur who doesn't know much about this. I have been studying the archaeology of Mesopotamia intensively for the past 11 years, and since a few years I have been studying the languages as well. I am now at the University of Pennsylvania, which together with the Oriental Institute of Chicago is one of the most important places in the world for the study of ancient Mesopotamia, to undertake research to receive my PhD in this field. I am a professional, I am a trained archaeologist, I have excavated in Mesopotamia and I will do so for the rest of my life. I resent the fact that you first refer to my contribution as babble and then act as if I am some random first year college student at some random school who does not really know what he is talking about. I don't want to sound pretentious, but you leave me no choice. This contribution was part of a short assignment to make us aware that we have to reach out with our knowledge to people in the world who are interested. So I am, if you want to really learn about ancient Mesopotamia that can be arranged, because online sources on ancient Mesopotamia are unfortunately VERY outdated and VERY inaccurate. But in this day and age of extreme democratization of knowledge (which I of course encourage), I do NOT agree with amateurs who read a few random texts in their spare time to dismiss scholarship and to present their own flawed interpretations as facts! Yes the text says "king", and yes Dumuzid appears in the King List as a king in ancient times, but that does not mean at all that he really existed as a king of Uruk. And all of this has NOTHING to do with the site of Tell al-Muqayyar (the -q- spelling is the most accurate reflection of the Arabic!) nor the city of Ur.

Finally, I said already that I hope you will indeed put back references to Meskalamdug and Akalamdug and anyone else of Ur! But please keep it accurate and relevant. Again, I refer to Art of the First Cities (which is a beautiful book full of up to date information and many pictures, I am sure you will love it) and The Treasures of the Royal Tombs of Ur. Both of these are easy to read, but written by leading scholars in the field. Read it, and use it, and elaborate this wikipedia entry, because Ur is one of the most important cities in the history of humankind, so it deserves a large wikipedia entry. I contributed some basic, ACCURATE information which you definitely elaborate on. Wikipedia is about cooperation, not about monopolies of single authors. And with this, I conclude this entire discussion ... Good luck!Srenette (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Srenette

If you're going to talk about accuracy, let's start with the very first assertion you just made - the SKL "doesn't say anywhere he captured Enmebaragesi." Oh really? Is that an accurate statement? Where do you think that idea that it says this came from then - I just pulled it out of my hat? Come, now. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/sumerian.html "Enmen-baragesi, who destroyed Elam's weapons, became king; he ruled for 900 years. Agga, son of Enmen-baragesi, ruled for 625 years." so he was succeeded by his son according to this text, and then later on when divine Dumuzid appears for the second time in the King List it only says "The divine Dumuzi, the fisherman, whose city was Ku'ara, ruled for 100." Now you tell me WHERE it says that Dumuzid captured Enmebaragesi ... Again, check your sources and use accurate scholarly sources. The Sumerian King List does not say anywhere that Dumuzid captured Enmebaragesi. If anything, neither Dumuzid nor Enmebaragesi have anything to do with the site of Ur, so why are we even having this entire "discussion" (if one can call it that). I sense serious hostility here coming from an amateur who feels offended that his spare time readings online are not considered good research or factual reality! You keep ignoring every single thing I said ... are you blind and/or deaf?? The Sumerian King List is for a large part FICTION! It is propaganda! It is mythological! Or are you claiming that King Arthur was real as well?? Or perhaps Ur and Eridu were Atlantis?? And of course Uruk was built by aliens, right? Come on, those books you see on Amazon, or in references, are written by people who know what they are talking about, and I am being trained by those people and will become one of those people soon. Can you please have some understanding that reading amateuristic internet sites does NOT constitute research?

and I seem to have to repeat yet again: THE SUMERIAN KING LIST IS NOT A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!! How hard can it be to understand the difference between fiction and historical reality? Between mythology and historical reality?? Again I ask you, do you believe kings really lived for thousands of years?? Do you believe everything in the stories is true, or only those pieces which just seem to fit what you want to believe in?? This is a completely ridiculous debate ... Apparently you are the one responsible for a lot of the weird statements I keep reading on wikipedia. What are your sources?? Could we please have that talk? Tell me what your sources are, because you NEVER mention them! Where are you getting all this from?? Srenette (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)srenettei

I'm not hostile, I'm just having a good laugh because you are screaming hysterically about accuracy, while you cannot get your facts straight, and are denying things that are common knowledge, like where the notion that Dumuzid of Uruk captured Enmebaragesi originates from. (Hint: No, I did no make it up out of thin air!) I know it is getting off the topic of Ur now, but is is indeed comical to see how much sheer original revisionism you're willing to put forth, straying from what sources actually tell us. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't even want to discuss what your sources are, says enough. Good to know you are having fun with it, in the mean time this entire thing has given us a good laugh and amazement at how some petty amateur thinks he knows it all. The fact that you don't even know who Dumuzid is says it all ... While you spend your free time on wikipedia and online, I will go excavate in Iran, Iraq and Syria and actually contribute to the knowledge of the Ancient Near East. I am done with this, I just thought there was a chance at a reasonable discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srenette (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, the proper way to write your nickname is Tijl Uilenspiegel ... the reason I know that is because he is an icon of Damme which is just 15 minutes driving from where I was born and grew up. Talking about accuracy ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srenette (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Since most of the "facts" you are randomly spewing on the Ur talkpage run directly counter to established wikipedia articles, for instance the appropriateness of the normal spelling Till Eulenspiegel, etc. it becomes evident that you have your own reality that differs in many ways from wikipedia reality. May I suggest that you start your own alternate wiki, in that case. That might be far easier than bringing this wiki into accordance with your views from the Ur talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As anyone should know, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of knowledge. Especially not for the Ancient Near East since it is people like you who are writing them based on your specific (and wrong) interpretations and based on very little research. That is also why young students are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source of information when they have to write a paper. Things on the internet do not come from divine knowledge, but is instead mostly put up by idiots as yourself. Enjoy your fantasy world. It has inspired me and other professional Mesopotamian archaeologists and Assyriologists to consider being more active on Wikipedia. I will be back, and I will change every single Wikipedia entry you wrote .. I saw the Ziggurat article, and there as well you say it was built in the Middle Bronze Age. As I pointed out earlier, the Ur III Empire is still considered the Early Bronze Age! Get your facts straight. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijl_Uilenspiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srenette (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the concerns of someone versed in the current scholarship are being rudely dismissed out of hand. LadyofShalott 21:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Request that a new thread be started with whatever the new topic is? Whether a king exists or not? I'm uncertain that all aspects can't be covered. The research is old enough that the research itself may be worthy of history, much as pre-Schlieman, Schleiman, and post-Schleiman's ideas about Troy. All of these may be valid or may have been valid at one time. The wrong ideas/misconceptions may be a part of archeological history. As well as current disagreements. Surely not every scholar agrees on every facet of Ur archaeology/history. Hardly any writing. Lots of guesses. Let's use this talent to good affect for the article.

I wish esteemed editors would stop trying to score points off each other. We do have to agree on some facts or the basis of presenting them. But we don't have to win every point of every argument. I hope the intent is not to drive away knowledgeable editors. We haven't seen this much interest in years! The article could well profit! Student7 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well all I have been arguing for is to stick to the facts. People can interpret texts whichever way they want, but the previous text here contained very little facts and many wrong statements. My text now is very basic and limited, and I have no problem with anyone adding things as long as they are facts which are referenced and not based on simplistic readings of flawed translations of texts which are very hard to interpret and contextualize. That being said, this article could use a discussion of the first two dynasties which are mentioned in the Sumerian King List, without this being presented as hard evidence. It would also be useful to add all the "Excavations at Ur" volumes, and a more in depth description of the structures discovered at the site. Ur is a major site, it should have a major wikipedia entry ;) Srenette (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)srenette

Agree that the article definitely could stand improvement and elaboration. Additional cited information would be appreciated. Can we discuss major additions here? It seems to me that cited information on kings, gods, and whatever can be used now. Unless there is disagreement over the reliability of the sources. Student7 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ooru in Tamil and Malayalam

Any user here have any knowledge/idea that the most common term for a small town in south Indian languages (has same pronunciation as Ur), Ooru came from (or any connection with) Ur ?Peopledowhattheyoughttodo (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)