Uruk

Toponymy

Uruk () has several spellings in cuneiform. In Sumerian, it is {{cuneiform|4|𒀕𒆠}} sux, and in Akkadian, it is spelled {{cuneiform|4|𒌷𒀕}} or {{cuneiform|4|𒌷𒀔}} sux (URUUNUG). In Arabic, it is called وركاء (ar) or أوروك (ar); in Syriac, ܐܘܿܪܘܿܟ (syc); and in Biblical Hebrew, (hbo). In Ancient Greek, it was known as (grc), Ὀρέχ (grc), and Ὠρύγεια (grc).

History

According to the SKL, Uruk was founded by the king Enmerkar. Though the king-list mentions a father before him, the epic Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta relates that Enmerkar constructed the House of Heaven (Sumerian: e₂-anna; cuneiform: E₂.AN) for the goddess Inanna in the Eanna District of Uruk. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh builds the city wall around Uruk and is king of the city.

Uruk went through several phases of growth, from the Early Uruk period (4000–3500 BC) to the Late Uruk period (3500–3100 BC). The city was formed when two smaller Ubaid settlements developed into the cities of Unug and Kullaba and later merged to become Uruk. The temple complexes at their cores became the Eanna District (Unug) dedicated to Inanna and the "Anu" District of Kullaba.

The Eanna District comprised several buildings with workshop spaces and was walled off from the city. By contrast, the Anu District was built on a terrace with a temple at the top. It is clear Eanna was dedicated to Inanna from the earliest Uruk period throughout the history of the city. The rest of the city was composed of typical courtyard houses, grouped by profession of the occupants, in districts around Eanna and Anu. Uruk was extremely well penetrated by a canal system that has been described as "Venice in the desert". This canal system flowed throughout the city connecting it with the maritime trade on the ancient Euphrates River as well as the surrounding agricultural belt.

The original city of Uruk was situated southwest of the ancient Euphrates River. Today, the site of Warka is northeast of the river. The change in position was caused by a shift in the Euphrates at some point in history, which, together with salinization from irrigation, may have contributed to the decline of Uruk.

Uruk period

Main article: Uruk period

In addition to being one of the first cities, Uruk was the main force of urbanization and state formation during the Uruk period, or 'Uruk expansion' (4000–3200 BC). This period of 800 years saw a shift from small, agricultural villages to a larger urban center with a full-time bureaucracy, military, and stratified society. Although other settlements coexisted with Uruk, they were generally about 10 hectares while Uruk was significantly larger and more complex. The Uruk period culture exported by Sumerian traders and colonists influenced all surrounding peoples, who gradually evolved their own comparable, competing economies and cultures. Ultimately, Uruk could not maintain long-distance control over colonies such as Tell Brak by military force.

Early Dynastic, Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian period

Dynastic categorizations are described solely from the Sumerian King List, which is of problematic historical accuracy; the organization might be analogous to Manetho's.

In 2009, two different copies of an inscription were put forth as evidence of a 19th-century BC ruler of Uruk named Naram-sin.

Uruk continued as a principality of Ur, Babylon, and later Achaemenid, Seleucid, and Parthian Empires. It enjoyed brief periods of independence during the Isin-Larsa period, under kings such as (possibly Ikūn-pî-Ištar, Sumu-binasa, Alila-hadum, and Naram-Sin), Sîn-kāšid, his son Sîn-irībam, his son Sîn-gāmil, Ilum-gāmil, brother of Sîn-gāmil, Etēia, AN-am3 (Dingiram), ÌR3-ne-ne (Irdanene), who was defeated by Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa in his year 14 (c. 1740 BC), Rîm-Anum and Nabi-ilīšu.

It is known that during the time of Ilum-gāmil a temple was built for the god Iškur (Hadad) based on a clay cone inscription reading "For the god Iškur, lord, fearsome splendour of heaven and earth, his lord, for the life of Ilum-gāmil, king of Uruk, son of Sîn-irībam, Ubar-Adad, his servant, son of Apil-Kubi, built the Esaggianidu, ('House — whose closing is good'), the residence of his office of en, and thereby made it truly befitting his own li[fe]".

Uruk into Late Antiquity

Although it had been a thriving city in Early Dynastic Sumer, especially Early Dynastic II, Uruk was ultimately annexed by the Akkadian Empire and went into decline. Later, in the Neo-Sumerian period, Uruk enjoyed a revival as a major economic and cultural center under the sovereignty of Ur. The Eanna District was restored as part of an ambitious building program, which included a new temple for Inanna. This temple included a ziggurat, the 'House of the Universe' (Cuneiform: E₂.SAR.A) () to the northeast of the Uruk period Eanna ruins.

Following the collapse of Ur ( 2000 BC), Uruk went into a steep decline until about 850 BC when the Neo-Assyrian Empire annexed it as a provincial capital. Under the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians, Uruk regained much of its former glory. By 250 BC, a new temple complex, the 'Head Temple' (Akkadian: Bīt Reš), was added northeast of the Uruk-period Anu district. The Bīt Reš along with the Esagila was one of the two main centers of Neo-Babylonian astronomy. All of the temples and canals were restored again under Nabopolassar. During this era, Uruk was divided into five main districts: the Adad Temple, Royal Orchard, Ištar Gate, Lugalirra Temple, and Šamaš Gate districts.

Uruk, known as Orcha (Ὄρχα) to the Greeks, continued to thrive under the Seleucid Empire. During this period, Uruk was a city of 300 hectares and perhaps 40,000 inhabitants. In 200 BC, the 'Great Sanctuary' (Cuneiform: E₂.IRI₁₂.GAL, Sumerian: eš-gal) of Ishtar was added between the Anu and Eanna districts. The ziggurat of the temple of Anu, which was rebuilt in this period, was the largest ever built in Mesopotamia. When the Seleucids lost Mesopotamia to the Parthians in 141 BC, Uruk continued in use. The decline of Uruk after the Parthians may have been in part caused by a shift in the Euphrates River. By 300 AD, Uruk was mostly abandoned, but a group of Mandaeans settled there, based on some finds of Mandaic incantation bowls, and by it was completely abandoned.

Political history

Uruk played a very important part in the political history of Sumer. From the Early Uruk period onward, the city exerted hegemony over nearby settlements. At this time (), there were two centers of 20 ha, Uruk in the south and Nippur in the north surrounded by much smaller 10 ha settlements. Later, in the Late Uruk period, its sphere of influence extended over all Sumer and beyond to external colonies in upper Mesopotamia and Syria.

The recorded chronology of rulers of Uruk includes both mythological and historical figures across five dynasties. As in the rest of Sumer, power moved progressively from the temple to the palace. Rulers from the Early Dynastic period exercised control over Uruk and, at times, over all of Sumer. In myth, kingship was brought down from heaven to Eridu, then passed through five cities in succession until the deluge, which ended the Uruk period. Afterwards, kingship passed to Kish at the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, which corresponds to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Sumer. In the Early Dynastic I period (2900–2800 BC), Uruk was in theory under the control of Kish. This period is sometimes called the Golden Age. During the Early Dynastic II period (2800–2600 BC), Uruk was again the dominant city exercising control of Sumer. This period corresponds to the First Dynasty of Uruk, also known as the Heroic Age. However, by the Early Dynastic IIIa period (2600–2500 BC) Uruk had lost sovereignty, this time to Ur. This period, corresponding to the Early Bronze Age III, is the end of the First Dynasty of Uruk. In the Early Dynastic IIIb period (2500–2334 BC), also called the Pre-Sargonic period (before the rise of the Akkadian Empire under Sargon of Akkad), Uruk remained under Ur's rule.

Architecture

Uruk has some of the first monumental constructions in architectural history, and certainly the largest of its era. Much of Near Eastern architecture can trace its roots to these prototypical buildings. The structures of Uruk are cited under two different naming conventions: one in German from the initial expedition and the English translation of the same. The site's stratigraphy is complex, and as a result, much of the dating is disputed. In general, the structures follow the two main typologies of Sumerian architecture: Tripartite, with three parallel halls, and T-Shaped, with three halls, with the central hall extending into two perpendicular bays at one end. The following table summarizes the significant architecture of the Eanna and Anu Districts. Temple N, the Cone-Mosaic Courtyard, and the Round Pillar Hall are often referred to as a single structure: the Cone-Mosaic Temple.

It is clear that Eanna was dedicated to Inanna, symbolized by Venus from the Uruk period. At that time, she was worshipped in four aspects as Inanna of the netherworld (Sumerian: ᵈinanna-kur), Inanna of the morning (Sumerian: ᵈinanna-hud₂), Inanna of the evening (Sumerian: ᵈinanna-sig), and Inanna (Sumerian: ᵈinanna-NUN). The names of four temples in Uruk at this time are known, but it is impossible to match them with either a specific structure and in some cases a deity.

• sanctuary of Inanna (Sumerian: eš-ᵈinanna)
• sanctuary of Inanna of the evening (Sumerian: eš-ᵈinanna-sig)
• temple of heaven (Sumerian: e₂-an)
• temple of heaven and netherworld (Sumerian: e₂-an-ki) File:Eanna5.svg|Plan of Eanna VI–V File:Eanna4b.svg|Plan of Eanna IVb File:Eanna4a.svg|Plan of Eanna IVa File:Eanna3.svg|Plan of Eanna III File:Eanna_neosumerian.svg|Plan of Neo-Sumerian Eanna File:Anu_district.svg|Plan of Anu District Phase E File:Pergamonmuseum Inanna 01.jpg|Reconstruction of a mosaic from the Eanna temple File:Pergamonmuseum Inanna 02.jpg|Detail of Reconstruction of a mosaic from the Eanna temple

Archaeology

By the end of the Uruk period c. 3100 BC) Uruk had reached a size of 250 ha. During the following Jemdet Nasr period it grew to a size of 600 ha by c. 2800 BC with the main temple area of Eanna being completely rebuilt after leveling the foundations of the Uruk period construction. A new city wall was constructed in this period.

The site, which lies about 50 mile northwest of ancient Ur, is one of the largest in the region at around 5.5 km2 in area. The maximum extent is 3 km north/south, and 2.5 km east/west. There are three major tells within the site: The Eanna district, Bit Resh (Kullaba), and Irigal. Archaeologically, the site is divided into six parts

1. the É-Anna ziggurat ' Egipar-imin,
2. the É-Anna enclosure (Zingel),
3. the Anu-Antum temple complex, BitRes and Anu-ziggurat,
4. Irigal, the South Building,
5. Parthian structures including the Gareus-temple, and the Multiple Apse building,
6. the "Gilgameš" city-wall with associated Sinkâsid Palace and the Seleucid Bit Akîtu.

The location of Uruk was first noted by Fraser and Ross in 1835. William Loftus excavated there in 1850 and 1854 after a scouting mission in 1849. By Loftus' own account, he admits that the first excavations were superficial at best, as his financiers forced him to deliver large museum artifacts at a minimal cost. A large basalt stela found by Loftus was later lost. Warka was also scouted by archaeologist Walter Andrae in 1902. In 1905 Warka was visited by archaeologist Edgar James Banks.

From 1912 to 1913, Julius Jordan and his team from the German Oriental Society discovered the temple of Ishtar, one of four known temples located at the site. The temples at Uruk were quite remarkable as they were constructed with brick and adorned with colorful mosaics. Jordan also discovered part of the city wall. It was later discovered that this 40 to high brick wall, probably utilized as a defense mechanism, totally encompassed the city at a length of 9 km. Utilizing sedimentary strata dating techniques, this wall is estimated to have been erected around 3000 BC. Jordan produced a contour map of the entire site. The GOS returned to Uruk in 1928 and excavated until 1939, when World War II intervened. The team was led by Jordan until 1931 when Jordan became Director of Antiquities in Baghdad, then by A. Nöldeke, Ernst Heinrich, and H. J. Lenzen. Among the finds was the Stell of the Lion Hunt, excavated in a Jemdat Nadr layer but sylistically dated to Uruk IV.

The German excavations resumed after the war and were under the direction of Heinrich Lenzen from 1954 to 1967. He was followed in 1968 by J. Schmidt, and in 1978 by R.M. Boehmer. In total, the German archaeologists spent 39 seasons working at Uruk. The results are documented in two series of reports:

• Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk (ADFU), 17 volumes, 1912–2001
• Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte (AUWE), 25 volumes, 1987–2007

Most recently, from 2001 to 2002, the German Archaeological Institute team led by Margarete van Ess, with Joerg Fassbinder and Helmut Becker, conducted a partial magnetometer survey in Uruk. In addition to the geophysical survey, core samples and aerial photographs were taken. This was followed up with high-resolution satellite imagery in 2005. Work resumed in 2016 and is currently concentrated on the city wall area and a survey of the surrounding landscape. Part of the work has been to create a digital twin of the Uruk archaeological area. The current effort also involves geophysical surveying. The soil characteristics of the site make ground penetrating radar unsuitable so caesium magnetometers, combined with electrical resistivity probes, are being used. Afterward 25 sediment cores, up to 13 meters deep, were done in 2024 and 2025 and a virtual geophysical topology of the Uruk area was produced.

Cuneiform tablets

A number of Proto-cuneiform clay tablets were found at Uruk. Around 190 were Uruk V period (c. 3500 BC) "numerical tablets" or "impressed tablets", 1776 were from the Uruk IV period (c. 3300 BC), 3,094 from the Uruk III period (c. 3200–2900 BC) which is also called the Jemdet Nasr period. Later cuneiform tablets were deciphered and include the famous SKL, a record of kings of the Sumerian civilization. There was an even larger cache of legal and scholarly tablets of the Neo-Babylonian, Late Babylonian, and Seleucid period, that have been published by Adam Falkenstein and other Assyriological members of the German Archaeological Institute in Baghdad as Jan J. A. Djik, Hermann Hunger, Antoine Cavigneaux, , and , or others as Erlend Gehlken. Many of the cuneiform tablets form acquisitions by museums and collections as the British Museum, Yale Babylonian Collection, and the Louvre. The latter holds a unique cuneiform tablet in Aramaic known as the Aramaic Uruk incantation. The last dated cuneiform tablet from Uruk was W22340a, an astronomical almanac, which is dated to 79 or 80 AD.

The oldest known writing to feature a person's name was found in Uruk, in the form of several tablets that mention Kushim, who (assuming they are an individual person) served as an accountant recording transactions made in trading barley – 29,086 measures barley 37 months Kushim.

Beveled rim bowls were the most common type of container used during the Uruk period. They are believed to be vessels for serving rations of food or drink to dependent laborers. The introduction of the fast wheel for throwing pottery was developed during the later part of the Uruk period, and made the mass production of pottery simpler and more standardized.

Artifacts

Main article: Art of Uruk

The Mask of Warka, also known as the 'Lady of Uruk' and the 'Sumerian Mona Lisa', dating from 3100 BC, is one of the earliest representations of the human face. The carved marble female face is probably a depiction of Inanna. It is approximately 20 cm tall, and may have been incorporated into a larger cult image. The mask was looted from the Iraq Museum during the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. It was recovered in September 2003 and returned to the museum. File:Male bust Louvre AO10921.jpg|Lugal-kisalsi, king of Uruk File:Warka mask (cropped).jpg|Mask of Warka File:Bull Warka Louvre AO8218.jpg|Bull sculpture, Jemdet Nasr period, c. 3000 BC File:Stele of lion hunt, from Uruk, Iraq, 3000-2900 BCE. Iraq Museum.jpg| Stele of the Lion Hunt – Uruk period

Archaeological levels of Uruk

Archeologists have discovered multiple cities of Uruk built atop each other in chronological order.

• Uruk XVIII Eridu period ( 5000 BC): the founding of Uruk
• Uruk XVIII–XVI Late Ubaid period (4800–4200 BC)
• Uruk XVI–X Early Uruk period (4000–3800 BC)
• Uruk IX–VI Middle Uruk period (3800–3400 BC)
• Uruk V–IV Late Uruk period (3400–3100 BC): the earliest monumental temples of Eanna District are built
• Uruk III Jemdet Nasr period (3100–2900 BC): the 9 km city wall is built
• Uruk II
• Uruk I

Anu District

Main article: Anu ziggurat

The area traditionally called the Anu district consists of a single massive terrace, the Anu ziggurat, originally proposed to have been dedicated to the Sumerian sky god Anu.

The Stone Temple was built of limestone and bitumen on a podium of rammed earth and plastered with lime mortar. The podium itself was built over a woven reed mat called ĝipar, which was ritually used as a nuptial bed. The ĝipar was a source of generative power which then radiated upward into the structure. The structure of the Stone Temple further develops some mythological concepts from Enuma Elish, perhaps involving libation rites as indicated from the channels, tanks, and vessels found there. The structure was ritually destroyed, covered with alternating layers of clay and stone, then excavated and filled with mortar sometime later.

Eanna District

The Eanna district is historically significant as both writing and monumental public architecture emerged here during Uruk periods VI–IV. The combination of these two developments places Eanna as arguably the first true city and civilization in human history. Eanna during period IVa contains the earliest examples of writing.

The first building of Eanna, Stone-Cone Temple (Mosaic Temple), was built in period VI over a preexisting Ubaid temple and is enclosed by a limestone wall with an elaborate system of buttresses. The Stone-Cone Temple, named for the mosaic of colored stone cones driven into the adobe brick façade, may be the earliest water cult in Mesopotamia. It was "destroyed by force" in Uruk IVb period and its contents interred in the Riemchen Building.

In the following period, Uruk V, about 100 m east of the Stone-Cone Temple the Limestone Temple was built on a 2 m high rammed-earth podium over a pre-existing Ubaid temple, which like the Stone-Cone Temple represents a continuation of Ubaid culture. However, the Limestone Temple was unprecedented for its size and use of stone, a clear departure from traditional Ubaid architecture. The stone was quarried from an outcrop at Umayyad about 60 km east of Uruk. It is unclear if the entire temple or just the foundation was built of this limestone. The Limestone Temple is probably the first Inanna temple, but it is impossible to know with certainty. Like the Stone-Cone temple the Limestone temple was also covered in cone mosaics. Both of these temples were rectangles with their corners aligned to the cardinal directions, a central hall flanked along the long axis by two smaller halls, and buttressed façades; the prototype of all future Mesopotamian temple architectural typology.

Between these two monumental structures a complex of buildings (called A–C, E–K, Riemchen, Cone-Mosaic), courts, and walls was built during Eanna IVb. These buildings were built during a time of great expansion in Uruk as the city grew to 250 ha and established long-distance trade, and are a continuation of architecture from the previous period. The Riemchen Building, named for the 16 cm×16 cm brick shape called Riemchen by the Germans, is a memorial with a ritual fire kept burning in the center for the Stone-Cone Temple after it was destroyed. For this reason, Uruk IV period represents a reorientation of belief and culture. The facade of this memorial may have been covered in geometric and figural murals. The Riemchen bricks first used in this temple were used to construct all buildings of Uruk IV period Eanna. The use of colored cones as a façade treatment was greatly developed as well, perhaps used to greatest effect in the Cone-Mosaic Temple. Composed of three parts: Temple N, the Round Pillar Hall, and the Cone-Mosaic Courtyard, this temple was the most monumental structure of Eanna at the time. They were all ritually destroyed and the entire Eanna district was rebuilt in period IVa at an even grander scale.

During Eanna IVa, the Limestone Temple was demolished and the Red Temple built on its foundations. The accumulated debris of the Uruk IVb buildings were formed into a terrace, the L-Shaped Terrace, on which Buildings C, D, M, Great Hall, and Pillar Hall were built. Building E was initially thought to be a palace, but later proven to be a communal building. Also in period IV, the Great Court, a sunken courtyard surrounded by two tiers of benches covered in cone mosaic, was built. A small aqueduct drains into the Great Courtyard, which may have irrigated a garden at one time. The impressive buildings of this period were built as Uruk reached its zenith and expanded to 600 hectares. All the buildings of Eanna IVa were destroyed sometime in Uruk III, for unclear reasons.

The architecture of Eanna in period III was very different from what had preceded it. The complex of monumental temples was replaced with baths around the Great Courtyard and the labyrinthine Rammed-Earth Building. This period corresponds to Early Dynastic Sumer 2900 BC, a time of great social upheaval when the dominance of Uruk was eclipsed by competing city-states. The fortress-like architecture of this time is a reflection of that turmoil. The temple of Inanna continued functioning during this time in a new form and under a new name, 'The House of Inanna in Uruk' (Sumerian: sux). The location of this structure is currently unknown.

List of rulers

The Sumerian King List (SKL) lists only 22 rulers among five dynasties of Uruk. The sixth dynasty was an Amorite dynasty not mentioned on the SKL. The following list should not be considered complete.

Rulers in orange are legendary figures with notably uncertain historicity.

References

References

1. Harmansah, Ömür. (2007-12-03). "The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Ceremonial centers, urbanization and state formation in Southern Mesopotamia".
2. (2003). "Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus". Metropolitan Museum of Art.
3. (2013). "The Sumerian World". Routledge.
4. [[Warwick Ball]], "Rome in the East: the transformation of an empire", Routledge, 2016
5. "Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, ePSD2".
6. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. (2003). "The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period". BRILL.
7. Fassbinder, J.W.E., and H. Becker, "Magnetometry at Uruk (Iraq): The city of King Gilgamesh", Archaeologia Polona, vol. 41, pp. 122–124, 2003
8. Kesecker, Nshan. (January 2018). "Lugalzagesi: The First Emperor of Mesopotamia?". ARAMAZD Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
9. Marchesi, Gianni, "The Sumerian King List and the early history of Mesopotamia", ''Vicino Oriente Quaderno'', pp. 231–248, 2010
10. Eva von Dassow, "Narām-Sîn of Uruk: A New King in an Old Shoebox", ''Journal of Cuneiform Studies'', vol. 61, pp. 63–91, 2009
11. Rients de Boer, "Beginnings of Old Babylonian Babylon: Sumu-Abum and Sumu-La-El", ''Journal of Cuneiform Studies'', vol. 70, pp. 53–86, 2018
12. Seri, Andrea, "The archive of the house of prisoners and political history", ''The House of Prisoners: Slavery and State in Uruk during the Revolt against Samsu-iluna'', Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 20–54, 2013
13. Witold Tyborowski, "New Tablets from Kisurra and the Chronology of Central Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period", ''Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie'', vol. 102, iss. 2, pp. 245–269, 2012, ISSN 0084-5299
14. Frayne, Douglas, "Uruk", ''Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 B.C.)'': Early Periods, Volume 4, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 439–483, 1990
15. H. D. Baker, "The Urban Landscape in First Millennium BC Babylonia", University of Vienna, 2002
16. R. van der Spek "The Latest on Seleucid Empire Building in the East". ''Journal of the American Oriental Society'' 138.2 (2018): 385–394.
17. R. van der Spek. "Feeding Hellenistic Seleucia on the Tigris". In R. Alston & O. van Nijf, eds. ''Feeding the Ancient Greek City'' 36. Leuven ; Dudley, Massachusetts: Peeters Publishers, 2008.
18. C. A. Petrie, "Seleucid Uruk: An Analysis of Ceramic Distribution", ''Iraq'', vol. 64, 2002, pp. 85–123, 2002
19. [[Rudolf Macuch]], "Gefäßinschriften", in Eva Strommenger (ed.), Gefässe aus Uruk von der Neubabylonischen Zeit bis zu den Sasaniden (= Ausgrabungen der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 7), pp. 55–57, pl. 57.1–3, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1967
20. "Couteau du Gebel el-Arak at the Louvre Museum".
21. (1996). "The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-first Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference". Eisenbrauns.
22. [[Harriet Crawford. Crawford, Harriet E.W.]], "Sumer and the Sumerians", Cambridge University Press, 2004. {{ISBN. 0-521-53338-4
23. "Site officiel du musée du Louvre".
24. Nissen, H. J., "Uruk: Key Site of the Period and Key Site of the Problem", in Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, edited by J. N. Postgate, Warminster: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, pp. 1–16, 2002
25. North, Robert, "Status of the Warka Excavation", ''Orientalia'', vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 185–256, 1957
26. [https://archive.org/details/Travel18341835FraserKoordistan/mode/1up]Fraser, James Baillie, "Travels in Koordistan, Mesopotamia, Etc: Including an Account of Parts of Those Countries Hitherto Unvisited by Europeans", R. Bentley, 1840
27. [https://archive.org/download/travelsresearche00loft/travelsresearche00loft.pdf]William Loftus, "Travels and researches in Chaldæa and Susiana; with an account of excavations at Warka, the Erech of Nimrod, and Shúsh, Shushan the Palace of Esther, in 1849-52", J. Nisbet and Co, 1857
28. Reade, Julian, "Early monuments in Gulf stone at the British Museum, with observations on some Gudea statues and the location of Agade", vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 258-295, 2002
29. Walter Andrae, "Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Warka (Uruk)", Berlin, 1935
30. Banks, Edgar James. "Warka, the Ruins of Erech (Gen. 10: 10) {{!}} The Biblical World 25.4, pp. 302–305, 1905".
31. Nissen, H. J., "The City Wall of Uruk", in Ucko, P. J., R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth, pp. 793–98, 1972
32. Julius Jordan, "Uruk-Warka nach dem ausgrabungen durch die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft", Hinrichs, 1928 (German)
33. [https://commons.library.stonybrook.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=amar] Ernst Heinrich, "Kleinfunde aus den archaischen Tempelschichten in Uruk", Harrassowitz, Leipzig 1936 (German)
34. Faraj Basmachi. (1949). "The Lion-Hunt Stela from Warka {{!}} Sumer".
35. H. J. Lenzen, "The Ningiszida Temple Built by Marduk-Apla-Iddina II at Uruk (Warka)", ''Iraq'', vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 146–150, 1957
36. H. J. Lenzen. (1960). "The E-anna district after excavations in the winter of 1958–59 {{!}} Sumer".
37. H. J. Lenzen, "New discoveries at Warka in southern Iraq", ''Archaeology'', vol. 17, pp. 122–131, 1964
38. J. Schmidt, "Uruk-Warka, Susammenfassender Bericht uber die 27. Kampagne 1969", ''Baghdader'', vol. 5, pp. 51–96, 1970
39. Rainer Michael Boehmer, "Uruk 1980–1990: a progress report", ''Antiquity'', vol. 65, pp. 465–478, 1991
40. M. van Ess and J. Fassbinder, "Magnetic prospection of Uruk (Warka) Iraq", in: ''La Prospection Géophysique, Dossiers d'Archeologie'' Nr. 308, pp. 20–25, Nov. 2005
41. Van Ess, Margarete, and J. Fassbinder, "Uruk-Warka. Archaeological Research 2016–2018, Preliminary Report", ''Sumer Journal of Archaeology of Iraq'' 65, pp. 47–85, 2019
42. Margarete van Ess, [https://publications.dainst.org/journals/efb/article/download/2252/6690 "Uruk, Irak. Wissenschaftliche Forschungen 2019"], ''e-Forschungsberichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts'', vol. 2, pp. 117–121, 2019
43. van Ess, Margarete, et al., [https://publications.dainst.org/journals/efb/article/download/3980/7665 "Uruk, Irak. Wissenschaftliche Forschungen und Konservierungsarbeiten. Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2020 bis 2022"], ''e-Forschungsberichte'', pp. 1–31, 2022
44. Haibt, Max. (2024). "End-to-end digital twin creation of the archaeological landscape in Uruk-Warka (Iraq)". International Journal of Digital Earth.
45. Fassbinder, Jörg W. E., "Beneath the Euphrates Sediments: Magnetic Traces of the Mesopotamian Megacity Uruk-Warka", Ancient East ANE Today 8, 2020
46. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667393225000122]Haibt, Max, et al., "Virtual replication of sediment cores for geoarchaeological research in Uruk-Warka (Iraq)", ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 100093, 2025
47. Fassbinder, Jörg WE, Sandra E. Hahn, and Mandana Parsi, "Archaeological Geophysics in the Marshy Area of Southern Mesopotamia. Insights and Details of Water Management in Uruk-Warka, Ur, and Fara-Šuruppak", Sumer and the Sea: Deltas, Shoreline, and Urban Water Management in 3rd Millennium Mesopotamia. Proceedings of the 1st ARWA International Research Workshop (Rome, 2–4 June 2021), pp. 79-90 , 2025 {{ISBN. 978-2-503-61468-7
48. Hans J. Nissen, "The Archaic Texts from Uruk", ''World Archaeology'', vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 317–334, 1986
49. M. W. Green, "Archaic Uruk Cuneiform", ''American Journal of Archaeology'', vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 464–466, 1986
50. 3-7861-1282-7
51. 3-7861-1336-X
52. 3-7861-1508-7
53. 3-8053-1504-X
54. 3-8053-1850-2
55. 3-8053-1217-2
56. 3-8053-1545-7
57. Corò, Paola, "The Missing Link – Connections between Administrative and Legal Documents in Hellenistic Uruk", ''Archiv für Orientforschung'', vol. 53, pp. 86–92, 2015
58. Hunger, Hermann and de Jong, Teije, "Almanac W22340a From Uruk: The Latest Datable Cuneiform Tablet", ''Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie'', vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 182–194, 2014
59. Mattessich, Richard, "Recent Insights into Mesopotamian Accounting of the 3rd Millennium B.C — Successor to Token Accounting", ''The Accounting Historians Journal'', vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 1998
60. Nissen, HansJörg; Damerow, Peter; Englund, Robert K., ''Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East'', Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993
61. Burmeister, Stefan. (2017). "The Interplay of People and Technologies Archaeological Case Studies on Innovations".
62. Charvát, Petr. (2002). "Mesopotamia Before History". Routledge.
63. Nissen, Hans J.. (2015). "Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 BCE–1200 CE". Cambridge University Press.
64. "Tablet MSVO 3,12 /BM 140855: description on CDLI.".
65. Rohl, David. (1998). "Legend: Genesis of Civilisation". [[Random House]].
66. Mittermayer, C.. (2009). "Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: Ein ungleicher Wettstreit". [[Academic Press]].
67. Steinkeller, Piotr, "A Campaign of Southern City-States against Kiš as Documented in the ED IIIa Sources from Šuruppak (Fara)", Journal of Cuneiform Studies 76.1, pp. 3-26, 2024
68. Jestin, Raymond R. 1937. Tablettes Sumériennes de S̈uruppak Conservées Au Musée de Stamboul. Mémoires de L’institut Français d’Archéologie de Stamboul 3. Paris : E. de Boccard.
69. Marchesi, Gianni. (January 2015). "Toward a Chronology of Early Dynastic Rulers in Mesopotamia". History & Philology (ARCANE 3; Turnhout).
70. Kesecker, Nshan. (January 2018). "Lugalzagesi: The First Emperor of Mesopotamia?". ARAMAZD Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
71. , Jerold S. Cooper, ''Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions: Presargonic Inscriptions'', Eisenbrauns, 1986, {{ISBN. 0-940490-82-X
72. C.J Gadd. (1924). "A Sumerian reading-book". Clarendon Press.