Talk:Eridu

Iraq Top‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities Start‑class

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Untitled

I cut {{Arabic}} since it was wrong. "Eridu" is an approximation of the Sumerian word for this place, and Sumerian was not, of course, written in Arabic script. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tisk tisk tisk this article lies

some infos

Eridug comes from Eri.dugga means "Good City" in Sumerian. It was also called Habur (because near Habur River).

The first city by the sea, at extreme south of Sumer (at the mounds of Abu-Shahrain). At that time it was not sand but sea.

King-God Enki came from Dilmun (Bahrein) and created the city. He will be called later Ea. Adapa (Adam) lived there.

Tell Abu Shahrain was excavated in the 1940s by Fuad Safar and Seton Lloyd. It is near actual Bassora.

See : http://www.atlastours.net/iraq/eridu.html

I will add these infos to main article. Saggiga

Note to user "Codex Sinaiticus" : why did you reverse the changing, I improved the article just before.

I mean it is pointeless that I use so much energy in improving articles here, really.

Saggiga

Hi, you seem kind of new to wikipedia, but generally speaking, we operate by consensus here. I have this article on my watchlist, as do most all of the editors who have ever edited it. The things you removed were added in by the previous editors before you got here, and for my part, I did not see any good reason to remove this information. You are welcome to make a case for such removal here -- you might convince me or enough other editors, if your reason is logical. Note, some of your first changes, that did not involve blanking information, are still there now; here is the net difference. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry ! I will make propositions for improvement in the future ;).

Thanks for your understanding, yes it is true I am quite new to this .

Saggiga

Age of Eridu

Eridu dates to the earliest phase of the Ubaid period 5,300 BCE - a lot older than 3,900 BCE. John D. Croft (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be older than the world? Remember that god created the earth 4004 BC. Can we please avoid putting such obviously false claims into a encyclopedia intended to be reliable?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.201.182 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Biblically asserted date of creation, though popularly held to be 4004 BC, is still contested. According to one version, it is 4004 BC. The Masoretic Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Latin Vulgate, Syriac, and Targum all assert possible dates between 3800 and 6200 BC, an almost 2500 year gap. However, Christians and Jews can be at least assured that the Bible, if its genealogies are taken literally, states that the earth was created at least within the last 10,000 years. However, carbon dating, though highly inaccurate, does point to dates such as 3 million years ago, which we may conservatively take to mean tens of thousands of years ago (depending on calibration). In either instance, this seems to disprove the merit of taking biblical genealogies literally. Still, when God created the earth and its surrounding objects in 6 "days," these could be figurative days. Because we measure time by the revolution and rotation of the earth, it is difficult to say that the days mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 can be taken to mean literal days as we know them. I personally believe that the days mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 are merely a partition between periods of creation (of undetermined length)that are symbolic. It is curious, however, to note that government and 'cities' as we know them seem to date mostly within the last 10,000 years, despite the supposed existence of humanoid hominids for almost 4 million years prior. But I am not a scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.91.209 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained, Contradicting Dates for the Earliest Settlement of Eridu: "In Sumerian mythology, it was said to be one of the five cities built before a flood occurred. Eridu appears to be the earliest settlement in the region, founded ca. 5400 BC..."

Kate Fielden reports "The earliest village settlement (c.5000 BC) had grown into a substantial city of mudbrick and reed houses by c.2900 BC, covering 8-10 ha (20-25 acres).

[[>>Eridu<< can be really called/translated in Hungarian to >>Erôd<< which means the same as Mighty City and not "good city". Contemporary science does not agree with the Bible's 4004 BC. The "flood of the Bible" was written in cuneiform writings way before the oldest text of the Bible. Bold text]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.215.46 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The equation of Eridu (coming from Eridug, 5400 BCE with modern Hungarian of the 20th century is an example of the False Entomological Method (FEM) John D. Croft (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distances

7 miles is approximately 12 kilometers. Since Wikipedia is not just an American encyclopedia, I suggest we use both miles and kilometers John D. Croft (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup needed

I did my best to match the organization of this article to the other sumerian city articles for a consistent style. I moved some text around, but deleted nothing. However, this article still needs a rewrite for clarity contrast it to Uruk and Nippur for example.--Gurdjieff (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Eridu/Tell Abu Shahrain

In which governorate and municipal district is Eridu located in? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rohl

I took a bunch of stuff out about Rohls theory because it is basically wrong, and anyway it probably belongs on the Rohl article. Left the basic idea though. For example, there was an area of Babylon that is named Eridu. I'll stick what I deleted here, just in case.

The ziggurat ruins of Eridu are far larger and older than any others, and seem to best match the Biblical description of the unfinished Tower of Babel.
One name of Eridu in cuneiform logograms was pronounced "NUN.KI" ("the Mighty Place") in Sumerian, but much later the same "NUN.KI" was understood to mean the city of Babylon.
The much later Greek version of the King-list by Berosus (c. 200 BC) reads "Babylon" in place of "Eridu" in the earlier versions, as the name of the oldest city where "the kingship was lowered from Heaven".
Rohl et al. further equate Biblical Nimrod, said to have built Erech (Uruk) and Babel, with the name Enmerkar (-KAR meaning "hunter") of the king-list and other legends, who is said to have built temples both in his capital of Uruk and in Eridu.

Ploversegg (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)ploversegg[reply]

I'm reinstating it because it's referenced, it's relevant, and saying it's "basically wrong" seems to be your POV, not Rohl's. We as editors are supposed to stick with the references, not offer our own original rebuttals and critiques as if our own knowledge or POV was superior to the published sources. If you have a rebuttal, it should be sourced to someone else who made the rebuttal, but in this case, you didn't even offer one, you blanked out evidence on your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Not a big deal. Seemed like, if anywhere, the material belonged somewhere else, like the Rohl page or in a seperate section of Eridu (since it's not really archaeology). The wikipedia directions for editors was to "be bold", so I was. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)ploversegg[reply]

Does Rohl have any support from mainstream scholars? I think a case needs to be made that this material is in conformity with the WP:FRINGE guideline. My present feeling is that it doesn't make it. McKay (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is wrong then show that it is wrong and come up with alternative material. Cite a reliable source that has published evidence and all will be just fine. Cush (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source other than Rohl that claims this is the largest ziggurat? Does Rohl explain why (http://www.bibleorigins.net/EriduSatelliteImagesPhotos.html) says "Eridu's ziggurat (Tell Abu Shahrein) is understood from its inscribed bricks to have been erected by Ur-Nammu (circa 2112-2095 BC) a Sumerian king of nearby Ur."?

Why should we expect Mr. Rohl to explain what is on some website? Some sources do say neo-Sumerian rulers including Ur-Nammu and/or his successor Amar-Sin continued work on the ruined ziggurat at Eridu. Sumerian sources themselves, say Enmerkar of Erech started it, and in fact his building program is one of central themes of his epic literature.

David Rohl is hardly the first scholar to notice the obvious similarity between the figures of Enmerkar with Nimrod, by the way. That was noticed by scholars almost as soon as the cuneiform Enmerkar legends came to light, and has been commented on in scholarly literature ever since. Eg. Theologische Literaturzeitung vol 30 1905, p. 586. So, while the "Nimrod=Enmerkar" idea may seem shocking and novel and original to many wikipedia readers, it's really very, very old hat. Rohl only developed it a little further with more evidence pointing to a Babel-Eridu connection. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved to Tower of Babel material to its own History section, where it seems better suited. In exchange, I put in proper Rohl references. Hopefully that is a satisfactory compromise.Ploversegg (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rohl's thesis involves the localisation of key biblical events, the making of connections between figures from Genesis and characters appearing in ancient Mesopotamian literature, and the argument that the development of civilisation in Egypt should be attributed to the seaborne movement around the Arabian peninsula of sophisticated groups of Mesopotamian origin. At times I found the detailed discussion rather hard to follow, and so was pleased to be reminded of where we were heading by the regular appearance of highlighted boxes, each containing a short, sequentially numbered conclusion.

However, readers should note that Rohl's argument requires major modifications to the accepted geographical and chronological reconstructions. If these are judged unacceptable, then the whole project founders. Sadly, geographical discussions follow what Rohl terms `the name game' through which place and personal names occurring in different sources are rendered equivalent through changing the odd letter or two. Chronological arguments rely upon a combination of carefully selected archaeological evidence, the juggling of dynasties and king-lists, some of which are of doubtful veracity, and the deployment of evidence drawn from ancient myths and literary texts.

"The flaws in Rohl's arguments are too numerous to cover in detail, so a few instances will have to suffice. To begin, the account of the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia (Chapter 3) is based upon Mellaart's now substantially out-of-date contribution to the Cambridge Ancient History (published in 1970). Moreover, Rohl regularly neglects to mention important evidence which contradicts his theories. His chronology is inconsistent with the evidence of radiocarbon dating, and his cavalier dismissal of the technique is disingenuous. Even more alarming is the fact that the most conclusive evidence for dating `the Flood' (thought by most scholars to be mythical) comes from claims for a great flood mentioned in Mayan records and occurring in 3113 BC. Sadly, the source for this astounding new evidence is another recent piece of pseudo-scholarship, entitled After the Flood: the Early Post-Flood History of Europe Traced Back to Noah. Legend is recommended if time hangs heavily during your next alien abduction." Graham Philip is Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Durham http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/Legend_Review.html 74.109.33.112 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native Names

Currently the article lists NUN.KI as a Sumerogram for Eridu's name. But Eridu WAS a Sumerian city. It's not like Hittite or Akkadian where they would write the Sumerian name and presumably still pronounce and decline it as though they were writing the name in their own language. Nunki would've simply been another name or nickname for the place, and the article still needs the cuneiform for Eridu(g). -LlywelynII (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, KI is simply used as a marker to show a place is being discussed. How sure are scholars that the town is being called Nunki, "The Mighty Place," instead of Nun, "The Mighty" (place)? Is there anything about the grammar that shows us it's one instead of the other? -LlywelynII (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I checked this out on ePSD as often happens, someone confused SIGN names with translitertion of words NUN is the sign name for several different sumerian words including one "eridu" which means guidence in english, KI is the sign name for several other sumerian words one of which "iri" was the determinative symbol for a city KI could also mean "ki" (English: place) and is the determinative for place as well. I cross checked the name as it appears in the kinglist transliteration with ePSD. Eridu should be (sumerian:Eridu(g) cuniform:NUN.KI literal:place of guidence) appropriate for a temple city, no? Gurdjieff (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oldest city in the world"

Did someone honestly just try and claim European Vinca Culture created cities? Herpaderpa. Vinca is impressive for neolithic Europe but its no Eridu. And by the way neither is Eridu Semitic (if so only moderately) as Sumerians (for the most part though it now seems Akkadian Semitics mixed with from the start) are not Semitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.154.255 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should suggest you to remove this occult nonsense about "oldest city of the world"; there were found much older cities in Siberia than any Shumerian "old city". In Europe is example Vinča culture, which predate for thousands of years any semitic culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.91.138 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no older city in Siberia. You are working with Pseudoscience here. Even the Vinca culture is not acknowledged as having built anything bigger than a small town. See Gwendolyn Leich, "Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City". John D. Croft (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>> What about the wikipage on Mehrgarh (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mehrgarh)? That page claims that it existed about 6000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulkarniv (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this claim made and then when one clicks on the "oldest city" link provided, there is not a mention of Eridu? Do you people not even read what you link to? 2601:140:8301:4B70:5DDC:615F:4841:D282 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets De-Crap the article

This article has been getting worse and worse as time goes on.

for example in the intro: "His temple was called E-Abzu, as Enki was believed to live in Abzu ("Deep Ocean")" then within the same article E-Abzu is spelled three different ways and the meaning of Deep Ocean/aquifer/whatever is repeated another three times.

We need to be very precise and CONSISTENT about the names not in the least because it is a translation so here are the variants

1. "E-Abzu Temple" this is a double signal since "E" means temple already
2. "E-Abzu" better but incorrect Sumerian transcription
3. "House of the Aquifer" literal English translation
4. "Abzu Temple" merges sumerian transcription and english
5. "E2-Abzu" correct sumerian

The Ziggurat is listed as being built by Ur-Nammu and Amar Sin which one was it? --Gurdjieff (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue you mentioned probably isn't controversial, just use the best notation, and leave enough room on the line to explain that E means temple. As for the ziggurat, Ur-Nammu came before Amar-Sin and I'm pretty sure both are said to have expanded or renovated existing structures, these are in the Neo-Sumerian period after the main site was nearly abandoned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Etymology

Eru = Impregnate

http://www.ping.de/sites/systemcoder/necro/info/sumerian.htm>--Prestigiouzman (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this first. That is from something called the Necromicon research group. We need academic sources that meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology, close similarity with UraloAltaica

Eridu (Eri+du), similar with "İridağ" or "Eridi", comparing with modern Turkish, "iri" (means "big", "great" in Turkish), "dağ" (means "mountain" in Turkish, also "tog", "tu", "duh", "taw" in Uzbek, Kazakh, Karachay and many other Altaic/Turkic-Uralic languages)("dağ" pronounciation with Turkish "ğ" according to English: "daah"). So, Eridu might mean "Great Mountain (land)" with that. Thanks. K₳R₳US (K₳R₳US) 03:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Near Basra???

I'm confused by this site being described as "near Basra" since the spot marked on the map on this page and spot marked on the map for Basra's page look pretty far apart to me.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Реконструкця лодки у причала в Эриду на которых плавали в Урук.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Эриду.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Match to existing format

I am gonna rearrange the sections to match wikiarticles Uruk Nippur Kish. Every sumerian city should have the same structure. Generally 1. Etytmology followed by 2. History followed by 3. Archeology Gurdjieff (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commonality is good though I don't know there actually is much in the way of Etymology for places like Kish and Eridu. They just were what the Sumerians named them way back whenever the Sumerians actually appeared. Thats AFAIK anyway. I mean yes, Nippur is thought to mean "Enlil City" but thats a bit thin to support an article section. Granted, Sumerian language is not my strong suitPloversegg (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents; not sure if the History-Archaeology division is always the best. I know some editors use this format a lot, but I think in some cases good arguments can be made to divide articles (slightly) differently, if needed. Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the early days of Wikipedia they used this format Khafajah. This moved to the newer format of History-archaeology-whatever, which I am partly to blame for.:-) My view is that this should be the default EXCEPT for exceptions where it shouldn't. Places with modern cities on top will lead with the modern stuff (until we can move all those pesky people off and excavate). If all we know of history is "we found some Mitanni pottery shards so they must have been here" then feel free to move the archaeology to the top. If they found the Lost Ark at a site then clearly it should be the top section. Etc. So I guess we are in agreement. Really, even I break my rule sometimes as in Kurd Qaburstan.Ploversegg (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Hi team, I added back the geographic names that got deleted. Lets keep these in, it was A LOT of research to find a source these in English. The unique geographic context of Eridu is written about in every popular book on the subject. I think it is notable and important to have the names and details for the site physical geography and ecology. If this (somehow) controversial to you, lets work it out here on the talk page. Gurdjieff (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dude why did you delete my stuff

it was good stuff you little not slay idiots 216.241.207.58 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your edit was disruptive to the article, introducing formatting errors and incorrectly changing a link. The content you added was not sourced. Newly added content that is not supported by citations to reliable sources is routinely reverted. Please note that users are required to observe civility in communicating with other users. Donald Albury 23:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]