Talk:Ur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SCoy4542.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ 113.203.61.55 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ES875.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Kasidim" equals Kassites?[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is Great Ziggurat reconstructed?[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Coordinates corrected[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Biblical Ur Section[edit]

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)[reply]

In the section “Identification with Biblical Ur,” I read “The Chaldeans .... but were not the rulers of Ur until the late 7th century BC, around 550 BC.” In fact, 550 BC is in the sixth century BC. Which is correct? Or is something missing here? Walter Turner 91.54.105.102 (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Entry[edit]

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)[reply]

The name of this city is not even 'Ur'[edit]

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

And which bible would that be, and what makes you think it is in any way a historical document? 81.235.193.239 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced rumor data in 2004 Entry[edit]

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)[reply]

Should "All About Archeology" be in the list?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Population estimate[edit]

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)[reply]

Update?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]
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)[reply]

Was the cuneiform ever correct?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Access[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Resume" work[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]
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)[reply]

?Historical Data[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The information in Reference 24 of the following link, with further references provided, proves that the Akkadian name of the city was indeed Uri(m), not "Uru":
The cuneiform signs ŠEŠ-UNUG/ABkiMA can be read Uru/a / im or Uru/a/i (with the various numerical designations for the signs, see Rykle Borger, Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978], 138). The preferred vocalization is Uri(m), with or without the final “m.” The four column syllabary 82–2–16,1 in the British Museum, line 42, column 1, demonstrates that the final vowel is “i.” The “MA” is either a phonetic compliment, indicating the first sign is to be read with a final “ma,” or, more likely, it is a grammatical complement and would also indicate a final “m” consonant. (See Marie-Louise Thomsen, The Sumerian Language, Mesopotamia 10 [Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1984], 161 for the genitive postposition /-ak/ that would account for the final “a” of the “MA” if the “m” is part of the name.) Because the “MA” is not always rendered in the texts (final consonants often are not expressed in the writing in Sumerian), the “m” is not deemed necessary. D. O. Edzard,G. Farber, and E. Sollberger (Die Orts-und Gewässernamen der präsargonischen und sargonischen Zeit, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 1, Beiheft zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B. [Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977], 7/l:176),and D. O. Edzard and G. Farber (Die Orts-und Gewässernamen der 3. Dynastie von Ur, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 2, Beiheft zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, [Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1974], 7/2:218) both employ ‘OJri(m),” while Brigitte Groneberg (Die Orts-und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit, Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 3, Beiheft zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1980] 7/3:247) reads “Urim.”
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/7-where-was-ur-chaldees
I am reverting the text back to "Uri(m)" for the Akkadian name of the city, and please do not change it to "Uru" anymore.
JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooru in Tamil and Malayalam[edit]

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)[reply]

There's no reason to think so. Human beings can only make a limited number of sounds with their mouths, and it's not unusual for unrelated cultures, by chance, to come up with similar-sounding words for similar things. It does not prove that one culture borrowed the word from the other. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Islamic Text and the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)[edit]

I am a muslim living in Turkiye. We have a city named "Şanlı(glorious) Urfa" here in south-east region of the country. I believe those "Islamic Texts" referred on the -Ur in Islamic tradition- paragraph, tells of the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) was thrown into fire this city of Urfa in Turkiye, not in the city of UR in Iraq. I travelled to Urfa and saw the pond which the locals call "Balıklıgöl" (rougly translated as 'Lake with the fish')- or Lake Aynzeliha , which they believe the fire the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) was thrown into , turned into water and firewood into fish, so it became "Balıklıgöl" pond.Also King Nimrod was the king of this city of Urfa in ancient times. You can read the legend from city's official site [| here]. So I think the reference in the article is not accurate and research on the matter is needed. Sumerian city of UR probably has nothing to do with the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and King Nimrod legend. --Fotte (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just briefly scanned through the article Islamic views on Abraham and did not notice this. You would have to convince the people there before inserting anything else. Note that these observations have nothing to do with this article. People on what is today called "Mount Arafat" assume the ark came to rest there, although there is little proof that is the Arafat of the bible. Similarly with "Mt. Sinai." No one has any idea where the real one is located. This would allow several places to make the same claim if WP:RELY citations are available.
In fact, the Orthodox Christians believe that Mary died in Jerusalem. Roman Catholics do not, and therefore must entertain the thought (with no proof) that she traveled to Patmos with John.
Most early Christian Apostles are buried in many places. None of them provably. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental collapse[edit]

Shouldn't a reference like this be added? "Ecologically, the agricultural productivity of the Sumerian lands was being compromised as a result of rising salinity. The evaporation of irrigated waters left dissolved salts in the soil, making it increasingly difficult to sustain agriculture. There was a major depopulation of southern Mesopotamia, affecting many of the smaller sites, from about 2000 B.C.E., leading to the collapse of Sumerian culture." This is simply from the "History/Sumerian Renaissance" section of the New World Encyclopeida. WLohe (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Unification Church's mirror of Wikipedia, so we can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

short chronology[edit]

According to the short chronology page "most recent work has essentially disproved the short chronology". If that's so why is it used here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.197.121 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit 21:24, 24 December 2017[edit]

@Tajotep:

the introduction showed large red letter type - error at line 361 (if I recall accurately) - (and taking into account the unlikely fact of my having hallucinated this fact, since I couldn't attribute the edit by the previous user to the error observable on the page) - I viewed the diff page afterwards and couldn't see the red-type, obviously I'm concluding the versions page indicates the actual text and error information is an over-lay outside of the functioning of the versions (hoping this makes sense in any case). 23h112e (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new Userbox for you all (well done everybody !)[edit]

I.D.I am a Talk: Ur




23h112e (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage site?[edit]

The article has a UNESCO World Heritage Site tag in the infobox, but none of the actual World Heritage articles list Ur as a confirmed site, it just appears to have been nominated and evaluated along with neighbouring locations. The tag seems a bit misleading. 81.227.48.127 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Music section[edit]

Mostly on a formatting note, but I feel like the section on Music should either be fleshed out to include more about the Lyres of Ur, or merged with the section on society and culture with a hyperlink to that specific article. still a little unwilling to edit things, so just wanted to pop this up here before doing anything. Lperkins5825 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

I added some additional information about the Royal tombs and Great death pits that Woolley discovered. Also, I added a photo of a headdress found in the tomb of Puabi from the British Museum. SCoy4542 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)SCoy4542[reply]

Archaeology section duplication[edit]

It looks like a some point someone cargo-culted a chunk about the Woooley excavation over from another web site and stuck it in the Archaeology section. Then with the passage of time it has kind of blended together with what was already there. Hopefully someone with better writing skills then I have can sort it out someday, at least cut down on the duplication.Ploversegg (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ur&oldid=1212325833"