This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is the name Ur derived from the same source as Ur-heimat, etc, thus meaning original/proto?

Basically, yes. The prefix ur- means ancient and first. It is from a Germanic prefix derived from a Germanic preposition which literally means out of or from. Urkontinent literally means the first ancient continent in German -- Ŭalabio 00:27, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

How embarassed would they be if we discover an even older continent ... ;-)

These things happen. We may find older continents, but not many. Continents accrete. Things we would call continents did not exist much more early than 3 milliard/billion years ago.

I'm not certain all continents had to accrete? In early Earth, continental crust was first formed by deep mantle plumes. Before this, iron and nickel had to first sink to form the iron metallic core and then this gave rise to the double layered convection circulation for plate tectonics to begin working. Even before this process began ca. 4.4-4.3 Ga?, continental crust began to form from the the volcanic plumes. No plate tectonic system could have occurred until the iron core was formed and the upper mantle circulation belt began to work. Couldn't there have been one large accumulated mass or a host of converging lava flows and crustal formations? Valich 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- — Ŭalabio 02:14, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Well, the urur-prefix has allegedly been used in German, already, so I guess good old duplication could still be applicable. 85.226.122.205 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of zircons found in the Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane of Western Australia(Yilgarn craton)and now 300 km. south are pointing to an earlier continent that existed between 4.4-4.3 Ga. High Oxygen-18 values of 8.5 and micro-inclusions of SiO2 in these zircon crystals are consistent with growth from a granitic source and points toward the involvement of supracrustal material that has undergone low-temperature interaction with a liquid hydrosphere - not magma. These zircons are evidence for continental crust and liquid oceans on the Earth between 4.4-4.3 Ga.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Valich (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 July 2006

Unless there are any objections, if I can find the evidence - locate enough sources - or if and when evidence becomes available - maybe it never will - to show that the Yilgarn craton was actually the first landmass, then I'm going to write an article proclaiming Yilgarn as the first continent, depending on what other firsthand research sources state and call it? That means 4.4-4.3 Ga.

I object strongly. Yilgarn is a craton, not a continent, and only the tiny zircon crystals in it are actually that old. The crust those zircons formed on is gone now, and therefore was not Narryer Gneiss itself, yet alone the entirety of Yilgarn. Don't add unscientific exaggerations to Yilgarn or any other article. 2601:441:467F:9E00:F907:6112:FCDE:50 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, being the oldest remaining landmass, or containing the oldest surviving zircons which have been found so far does not in any way rule out the existence of other, older or equally old rocks which have since been destroyed. Since the Earth had a crust by then, it's guaranteed other Hadean and Eoarchean rocks existed which have melted or eroded away to nothing. 2601:441:467F:9E00:F907:6112:FCDE:50 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ur continent or supercontinent? In the "continents of the world" box, it says Ur is a supercontinent, yet in this article, it is written as a continent.M&NCenarius 02:05, September 8, 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear. As the article explains: "...it was probably the only continent on Earth, and is so considered by some to be a supercontinent, even though it was probably smaller than Australia is now." -- bcasterline • talk 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information on this page does not seem to be consistent with that provided on Supercontinent Cycle, which lists Ur as just one of several supercontinents, and not the first. I'm no expert, but it seems like these pages need to be reconciled. Mperrin 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text says "Ur survived for a long time, until it was first torn apart when the supercontinent Pangaea broke apart". Ur last until Pangaea broke apart? How can that be? Was it Ur or Pangaea? CsikosLo 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ur was part of Pangaea, roughly like how India is now part of Eurasia. Orcoteuthis (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is contradicted by Vaalbara and Supercontinent cycle as to being the first continet. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the Vaalbara article and felt it important to mention that there is theorized prior supercontinent. Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni314 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this time-line from the article since it is unreferenced, at least partly incorrect, and not very informative. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]