What about London?
List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
21–30 of 224 posts
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#22This leaves out nomadic populations that have had continuous populations for thousands of years. E.g. in Canada, 14,000 years. Because they can't put a pin in a map. So some really old, continuously inhabited areas in the world. Blows away the named ones. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-oldest-north-a... {edit} wow who knew there were so many militant amateur archaeologists, or that the mere mention of…
Nomads, practically by definition, do not continuously inhabit cities for long periods.
...and because they don't have a pin on the map, are ignored. As was my point.
No worries; being ignored and marginalized is among the least troubles they have.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#23I like how Rome is listed as 753 BCE. A lot of guess work on these dates
Best estimate, until the next archaeological discovery. As long as we don't equate estimates with facts, we're good.
That's not an estimate based on archaeological discovery, it's the classical date given by Varro Reatinus, which he took from Titus Atticus (I'm mentioning Varro Reatinus simply because this timeline is now called the "Varronian timeline"). Titus Atticus came up with it based on various traditions and works available to him, but it's really just one of the dates that have been proposed by people in that age. It's the most common traditional date today largely because of a pretty complicated tradition of politics, and of legal and written works, that ends with Joseph Scaliger in the 16th century. It became, more or less, the "official" chronology used by the Roman state at one point, and it ended up inscribed on Augustus' Arch and on the Fasti Capitolini. But that's about it. In fact, it's likely that everyone even back then knew at least a good part of it was made up, since it was based on a bunch of traditional dates that didn't quite add up, and Tittus Atticus (edit: or Varro Reatinus? I don't remember which one) had to insert various "dark years" and "anarchic periods" in-between so that his chronology would match the timeline of consulships.
It's hard to put a date on it, because Rome likely developed out of several villages in the region. The oldest arcaheological evidence from the area is way older than the 8th century BC. The Romans themselves didn't have anything other than a best guess about it, either (and several were put forth, not just this one).
Edit: yep, I'm really fun at parties!
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#24I had the opportunity to visit Byblos, Lebanon and spend a few hours walking around. It was fascinating to me how many different civilizations had left physical imprints: Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, European Crusaders. I highly recommend a visit to any city on this list.
as a native German, I can say you might want to skip Neuss, you won't miss out on a lot :P
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#25This leaves out nomadic populations that have had continuous populations for thousands of years. E.g. in Canada, 14,000 years. Because they can't put a pin in a map. So some really old, continuously inhabited areas in the world. Blows away the named ones. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-oldest-north-a... {edit} wow who knew there were so many militant amateur archaeologists, or that the mere mention of…
Yes, the list of cities does not include nomads. Also, this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apple_cultivars does not include Valencias.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#26What about London?
Wikipedia’s date for that is 43 AD, there’s a long list of European cities that stops a lifetime before that.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nomads, practically by definition, do not continuously inhabit cities for long periods.
...and because they don't have a pin on the map, are ignored. As was my point. No worries; being ignored and marginalized is among the least troubles they have.
Does that mean that we have to force them into any list even if they don't belong there, just to be politically correct?
This is a list about cities, not civilizations. Nomadic populations can be included in lists that talk about those topics. There can also be a list of "oldest nomadic populations" from which cities are excluded.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#28I happened to be born in one of those cities. AMA :)
Have you lived in much younger cities? How does the weight of history in the old city compare? Do you prefer to live in a younger city, or an elder one, and why?
I grew up in New Orleans and every other US city I’ve lived in has felt kind of... unmoored... in a certain way, what history there is in much of the rest of the country has been thoroughly torn down, and it’s not like there’s much history in a 1940s building yet anyway.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#29So, Lisbon is older than Rome, TIL!
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're suggesting that the 753 BC date is archaeological, you're incorrect. 753 BC is the legendary date. There's archaeological evidence of habitation on the hills of Rome earlier than that.
Yes but when did it become a "city" versus just a caveman camp?
When do you have a handful of sand? If you take 1 grain of sand and put it in your hand, that's not a handful. Same with 2, 3. How many grains of sand constitutes a handful?