Talk:Erech

Merge with Uruk?

Same city, same historical information. Obvious candidate for merger. Especially considering there's a reference regarding population which may conflict in the opening Uruk paragraph. 210.7.132.71 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is totally ridiculous. Erech is just the Hebrew name for Uruk. The Bible contains a particular legend about Uruk that does not match any Mesopotamian legends, but that doesn't justify a whole article for a different name of the city. We don't have separate articles on Amel-Marduk and Evil-merodach, do we? john k (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most historians would agree that Erech and Uruk are the same. I would agree that, under normal criteria they would be candidates for a merger. However, consider the fact that under one of the Sumerian dynasties, the city was actually referred to as ERECH (it is Sumerian, not Hebrew), not URUK. This is carried over into the translations of a number of documents (see Codex Lipit-Ishtar, for example). For that reason, at least a cross reference, if nothing else, would be in order. Many textbooks and professor's websites carry this name for Uruk, and these college students may not be aware that Erech and Uruk are one and the same. Also, as a side, Encyclopaedia Britannica (print edition) lists the city under Erech, with a cross-reference from Uruk. (User:Dean Basse|DeanBasse) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of good points being made here.

Erech is still the title of Britannica online's main article.

On the other hand, Oxford University have primary source Sumerian text refering to Unug, also online.

Uruk is the Akkadian name for the city: i.e. a Semitic language name (like the Hebrew Erech), but from the branch local to what were previously the Sumerian city states.

Regarding name variants, Uruk is a cute compromise, Unug would be the autonym, Erech has historically been the best known in English because of the prominence of the Hebrew via the Bible. There are good arguments for adopting any of the three nomenclatures. Strictly speaking though, identification of Erech with Unug is a popular, uncontroversial, consensus theory among academics, but theory none the less.

I'd be comfortable with either merger or no merger. I can see good cases for both. Sorry if that's not very helpful. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS if I read the code of Lipit-Ishtar correctly, it says Unug not Erech. The Sumerian in line 47 of column one has Unug. The translation on the right has Erech. Erech has simply been the more popular name in English, borrowed from the Hebrew. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John K above, this article is totally ridiculous, and gets almost nothing right. It should certainly be merged with its synonym Uruk, since practically all of the information here is presented sloppily and of little value. For instance: "the second city built by king Nimrod (later Amraphel) after the destruction of the Tower of Babel." Huh? "later Amraphel"? Does the writer mean that Nimrod later became Amraphel, or that Amraphel later built it? Of course I know the answer (ie. Amraphel is described as a later king of Erech, later in Genesis), but this will not be clear to many readers. The next problem with this statement is that it refers to the "destruction" of the Tower, even though no destruction is ever mentioned in Genesis. (It just says they stopped building it). The article next quotes Jasher, a mediaeval rabbinic document, as if it were a prominent view -- and the relevance of the rest of the article is even harder to understand. The one classical view that might be relevant here, as attested by Jerome, identified Erech with Edessa -- but this doesn't even get a mention. I support just merging it into Uruk. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a year with no comment. In light of the above, I just reverted to the last good version (from 2 1/2 years ago), but even now it is still just a fork of Uruk. I know of no other candidate from any scholar for the identification of "Erech" - except for the 4th century view of Jerome mentioned above, ie. connecting it with Edessa. There is simply no need for "two articles about the same thing", so I plan to boldly merge sometime tomorrow. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]