Talk:Ziggurat of Ur

name translation

Sumerian E-temen-nigur literally translates to "house of foundations of awe". "E" (house) here means temple, and "terror" is a somewhat unhappy translation of "nigur". In fact, I find "nigur" only in the meaning "to be clad in awesome luminosity"[1], suggesting a translation of "temple whose foundations are clad in awesome luminosity".

That the foundations are supposed to "inspire" or "create" "terror" is an interpretation, not a literal reading, just like Etemenanki isn't necessarily the "house whose foundations create heaven and earth".

I realise we cannot make up our own translation but have to stick what we find in sources, but the present translation isn't exactly solidly referenced. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've figured out the cuneiform spelling,

𒂍𒋼𒉎𒅍𒊒 É.TEMEN.NÍ.GÙR.RU

𒂍𒋼𒉎𒅍 É.TEMEN.NÍ.GÙR(U)

--dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

reconstruction

the article used to claim the ZoU is the "only major remainder of Ur". This, I suspect, is nonsense. If the ziggurat is today the most imposing feature of the site, it is because it has been reconstructed, not because it was in any way better preserved than the other ruins of the city. Or else this needs substatiantion from some credible reference. It would also be worth noting when it was rebuilt and under whose authority. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

calling the building in the photograph a "4100 year old building" is a joke. The facade and staircase have been built under Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. The bulk of the remains that would be visible but for Saddam's building is the Neo-Babylonian reconstruction, aged 2500 years. Only the lowest level (the fundament) is a remnant of the original Neo-Babylonian ziggurat. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what is looked like during excavation [2]. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

excellent find! Might this image be in the public domain? The remains are indeed spectacularly well-preserved, but they are of course the remnants of Nabonidus', not Ur-Nammu's ziggurat. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, no idea. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

well, the image must date to after 1927, so we can't assume it is in the PD by default. We would need to figure out where it was published. We can stash it under EL for now. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What the Ziggurat of Ur was used for

Hello Im a sophmore in highschool i have a semester exam comming up i need to know what the Ziggurat of Ur was also used for besides a place for sacrifice and worship. please respond

• The article states: "The ziggurat was a piece in a temple complex that served as an administrative center for the city, and which was a shrine of the moon god Nanna, the patron deity of Ur."

In the next paragraph, it states:"The construction of the ziggurat was finished in the 21st century BC by King Shulgi, who, in order to win the allegiance of cities, proclaimed himself a god". A large monument like that would have helped to validate the king's claim of divinity. In addition, such monuments in the ancient world (as now) were expressions of power, not only for the ruler but also for the people, and a testament to their organizational capabilities. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I consistently wonder why these structures - ziggurats, pyramids, henges and mott and bailey's - are always presented as spiritually relevant structures first when it seems patently obvious to me that they were all built to provide a bronze age defensive position in case of attack by outside powers. When I look for such interpretations I am inevitably met with conspiracy theory sites and people who are obviously not open-minded - i mean really, you can't link to an article as a source when in the same article or one or two "next to" it talk about crop circles as the work of aliens... Is it not at least in the spirit of wikipedia to present the possibility that these structures were not built solely to chaperone the soul into the afterlife? They provide an obvious military advantage against an attacking force, in this particular case, higher ground. We don't do original research but what if the bulk of the currently available citable research is actually already tainted by prior notions? 68.115.35.110 (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As you say, we don't do original research. All we do is present what reliable sources have to say, and if you can find some, fine. But I'm annoyed with your post because it made me look at what Ziggurat says, and it's short section on purposes is pathetic and needs work, and now I know that I feel obliged to do it. Curses! Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This[3] might help. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ziggurat of 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050623085340/http://www.islamonline.net:80/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/07/article_02.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/07/article_02.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

why were they tall

why were they so tall 68.193.104.254 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)