From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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. ([1])

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)

, After The Sumerian Translation[edit]

Is it part of the transliteration? 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing table placing the Uruk culture in a Neolithic timetable[edit]

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)

does not help[edit]

"At its 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)

Uruk - Erech[edit]

Looking at the old Erech article, I agree that stuff should have been merged with this article. However, I think the Biblical material should now be the Erech article. Historicpastime (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont - there's just too little there to warrant it. A paragraph here is appropriate. When I first looked at the merge the amount of unique information in the Erech article was so small it was a prime merge prospect. The amount of information regarding the Biblical Erech and the archeological links to Uruk barely warrant a stub.
I'd be all for a new Erech article but not until the amount of information in the 'Biblical Erech' paragraph at least triples. (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A started article with suitable stub templates will encourage contribution better than the material being buried in Uruk. Some topics simply have less material, and that shouldn't be the criteria for putting that material in other articles. Historicpastime (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
True, but the old article was simply a dump of the Britannica lightly edited with no cross-referencing, so trying to imply gravitas just because it was a 'started article' isn't much of an argument either. It's not as though the current position is irrelevant, either. Uruk IS Erech. The reason its here is because more than one person thought it fit better here, and I think it does. If in the end it inspires someone to create an Erech article that's correctly templated and has more material, then its all good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdw0 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I never said Erech should go back to Britannica version, and as I recall, much of the article that was merged was about the archaeological site and belonged in Uruk article. But the "Erech" section in this article should now be used to start a new article. The Bible has its own traditions and should be developed in its own article. Historicpastime (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why can't the 'Bible traditions' be mentioned here? Does every mention in the Bible need a separate article? (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Bible traditions can be mentioned here, and linked as well, but they should be developed in their own articles. Historicpastime (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm still not getting it. Do people doing a search of Bible terms expect to find articles with only Bible references and nothing else? That's a bit untrealistic, especially for such an obscure reference. Or do you think the section won't be developed by Bible experts because its not in its own article? Mdw0 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, people looking up Biblical terms should get what they are looking for. The Biblical Erech is not too obscure for Uruk to have been called Erech for a long time. And yes, an article of its own will encourage Bible experts to edit in their field. Historicpastime (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) OK some things are bothering me now:
  • You proposed the merge *one day* before you went and did it.
  • You claim above that "more than one person thought it fit better here", and I see no response at all to your merge proposal.
  • Stylistically, you are using rhetorical questions instead of presenting arguments for keeping these two topics together. Maybe I am assuming wrong, but this smacks of Biblical literalism. In any case, no case has been made for keeping these two topics together.
I'm moving the Biblical Erech material to Erech now, where a searcher would expect to find it. Historicpastime (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I had some help on getting the merge right because I was making a mess of it from someone who agreed the merge was a good idea. Given that you've agreed with the vast majority of the merge the one day gap isn't really relevant - but you're right, I probably should've given it a couple of days. But I was happy with the merged text I'd put together and I thought - Be Bold.
As for the rhetorical questions - they're not rhetorical. They just might be difficult for someone who likes to makes assertions such as "Bible traditions... should be developed in their own articles' without saying why. To put it mildly - citation needed. That's why I was asking you questions - to see if you had any more than 'it SHOULD be separate.' But you didn't, which was a disappointment.
I sense a desire to protect people with a religious bent from being exposed to science or historical debate, especially since you haven't even bothered to link the Erech article back to Uruk AT ALL. Putting 'citation needed' on the last line makes me wonder if you've even READ the Uruk article, because the Sumerian Kings List is the archeological link you need.
The reasons for keeping the two together, mentioned earlier is that they're the same place, and there's archeological evidence for it, so people searching for the Biblical reference can see how big and important Uruk is in the scheme of things. I think that sort of redirection is very important for researchers of all types.
Why cut the information out of the Uruk article? Don't you think its an important addition? Or are you deliberately trying to separate the two articles? It's going back in.
But having said all that - if I'd come across the Erech article as it is now I wouldn't think 'This shouldn't be a separate article.' I'd probably just make the text more explanatory (the simple cut and paste was a bit lazy) and fix the links. Mdw0 (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Don't call other editors too dumb to understand your questions.
2. Who agrees that your merge is a good idea? I can't find that anywhere.
3. The vast majority of the merge is staying merged, just as you did it. It appears your focus was to make an WP:OR merge of a Biblical tradition with an archaeological site.
4. Cut-and-paste is what splitting is. If you want to add to Erech, add to it. Don't call other editors lazy.
Historicpastime (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didnt say you were too dumb. That's your paranoia coming out. I just said you were wrong to label questions as a rhetorical stylistic argument when they were actual questions.
The discussions were on other talk pages. Anyway it doesnt matter now since you said the majority of it was good.
The main reason for the merge is that the majority of it was reproduced and better updated in Uruk. I also noticed that there was no mention of Erech in the Uruk article apart from the top line, so an extra section in there would be interesting and relevant. The Uruk site isnt just an archeological site - there's plenty of social and economic history too. I think things relating to Erech belong on the Uruk site, especially since the first line says Biblical name - Erech.
I also didn't say you were lazy, I said this was a lazy edit. If you care so much about the Erech article being separate you could at least make some basic fixes to the text so that its separate and makes sense too. Splitting isnt just cut and paste, its creating a new article which ought to be as good as you can make it. You could've changed the references to sections that used to be above it in the Uruk article but now aren't, and added cross references back to the original. All easy stuff. This is your baby, not mine. I'll maintain and maybe even add to the section in the Uruk article.
I mentioned before that I think you have an ulterior reason for wanting this information separate, a reason you don't want to reveal here. That was possibly inaccurate, but you haven't responded to that, so I guess we can let that go. Checking the Erech information again, I realise now that the actual link between Uruk and Erech is not very strong. I just assumed it was from all the archeological information in the old Erech article. The primary source which shows Uruk is erech and vice-versa definitely needs to be in the article. If I find a better source for the link I think that should go onto the Uruk page. Mdw0 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

edits for clarity[edit]

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)

I have made many edits for clarity nothing was deleted only moved to the paragraph with the matching topic sentence. wherever I could cite a date population or land area I added this information. I also fixed the lead in sentance to meet wiki standards this article still needs alot of work for example when why and how did kullaba form? what happens to uruk after 2000bce? when was the city walled and why? ect.--Gurdjieff (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone not believe that the Bible's Erech is Uruk? john k (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Uruk Location[edit]

In which municipal district of Muthanna is Uruk located in? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Said to be in As Samawah but looking at Districts of Iraq it's a close call.Ploversegg (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

Article Changes[edit]

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)ploversegg

Merged "mask" into the article and pointed to the other two in see also--Gurdjieff (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

one more thing that can be done to upgrade the article quality would be to add more categories and add uruk to the see also section of relevant articles--Gurdjieff (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Eanna4composite.svg proposed for deletion[edit]

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

'Uruk' is not the etymology for 'Iraq'.[edit]

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 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

7033, date[edit]

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. (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Building C[edit]

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)

"Harmansah, 2007" source (?)[edit]

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"?

Oldest Writing[edit]

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)

Hi MrSativa, I found this, after reading your post, because it spiked my interest:

"The Dispilio tablet was discovered by a professor of prehistoric archaeology, George Xourmouziadis, in 1993 in a Neolithic lake settlement in Northern Greece near the city of Kastoria. A group of people used to occupy the settlement 7,000 to 8,000 years ago. The Dispilio tablet was one of many artefacts that were found in the area, however the importance of the table lies in the fact that it has an unknown written text on it that goes back further than 5,000 BC. The wooden tablet was dated using the C12 method to have been made in 5260 BC, making it significantly older than the writing system used by the Sumerians."

The web link is

How true this article is, I do not know. I could not find anything on your unknown source, the only reason I am on the article of Uruk/ Erech is because i am writing a fictional book, but would like certain things in it to be accurate as possible. Anyways, I will continue to do more research on this subject matter, because I am including Egyptians in my book as well. Mrs.Decker (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)