Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 224 posts

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#91

Post by austincheney »

lisper wrote: post #84

What is most striking to me about this list is how you can use it to trace the broad sweep of human habitation on the planet. The oldest continuously inhabited cities date back 5000 years and the youngest (in Oceania) only a few hundred. So for 5000 years humanity lived on a planet with unexplored and unexploited regions. That's all done now. The entire planet is now completely overrun with homo sapiens, but that pro…

I don't get that impression. The cities listed fall into two required criteria: documented history and civilization. This does not account for neolithic settlements of which some grew quite large for their respective lack of centralized management. This is qualified by the list mentions some cities were neolithic settlements before they qualified for the status of "city" and some cities existed far earlier than the history available, as far back as 7000 BCE the theorized start of civilization. This does not account for civilizations that may have appeared earlier but failed before historical documents were written.

People were all over the world at this time leaving in various states of habitation. The earliest surviving civilization was Mesopotamia at around 7000 BCE but the earliest known neolithic settlements were in the area of modern Czech Republic circa 45000 BCE. By the time civilian began to flourish there were neolithic settlements in many unrelated places of the world. People have been living in the northern polar region since well before the earliest neolithic settlements and did not civilize until recently and some remain uncivilized.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#92

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #55
owenversteeg wrote: post #34

What interests me the most is not so much the #1 oldest, but more those cities where the past is still visible, or the city is similar to the same one that stood there thousands of years ago. Specifically, I find Yerevan very interesting. If someone from 2,000 years ago stood there today, they'd certainly realize it was the same city: the same Mount Ararat towering over the city, the same river Hrazdan running by the…

Quite a few of the cities of Ancient Greece and its colonies have survived to this day. Obviously Athens and many places in Greece but not only. For example in France, Marseille and Nice (both Greek colonies) are 2,600 and 2,300 years old, respectively. The first inhabitants would definitely recognise them immediately today from the unique landscape (like Yerevan). As for Puning, it's not so much related to China's r…

> Marseille and Nice (both Greek colonies)

No shit?! I had no idea the greek empire(s) stretched up this far. Was it a peaceful colonisation?

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#94

Post by HorkHunter »

diego_moita wrote: post #83
HorkHunter wrote: post #29

So, Lisbon is older than Rome, TIL!

But it was severely devastated by 2 earthquakes. The first was in 1531. The worst was in 1755, an huge tragedy that left marks in European culture (creation of seismology, a bit discussion on the vindication of God within the Enlightenment,...)

Yeah in 1775 it happened during All Saints Day, and I think they still say "Todos os Santos não chegaram"which translates to something like "All saints were not even enough to save us"

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#95

Post by new_time »

While I don't see any examples of on this list, except perhaps for Pula, emerging archaeological evidence indicates that in the Balkans region around 7000 years ago massive towns (cities?) began emerging with up to 40,000 people living in some settlements. The homes were arranged in tight lots next to one another, with evidence for some homes even being 2 story structures.

The inhabitants of these communities were the same Neolithic farmers who crossed from the Near East, over Anatolia into Greece and then up into the rest of Europe around 8000 years ago.

They not only introduced farming to Europe, but also herding and domesticated cows and sheep. There is some linguistic evidence that the word Taurus (representing the bull in the Zodiac) is a remnant of the language these people spoke, which would make sense as they were the ones to introduce the bull to the ancestors of the Proto-Indo-European speakers.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#96

Post by iso1631 »

InitialLastName wrote: post #52
egypturnash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buildin…

Have you lived in any of the older cities on the East Coast? The Philadelphia and Boston areas have an enormous amount of history still present and visible, especially in the outskirts that haven't faced as much commercial pressure. Even downtown in both cities there's quite a lot that's been maintained from the colonial era.

I do feel that America makes a much bigger thing about recent history than the rest of the world - there feels far more history in Boston and New York than in Chester (my nearest historical towns), despite the latter being founded in AD79.

The local cafe I (used to) go to for lunch at weekends was built in 1583 (the building on that site had burnt down in a fire). There's some history at the start of the menu, and sure it's older than most of the houses in town, but it's no means unique and there are older buildings in town (not many as most burnt down in the 1583 fire)

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#97

Post by w-m »

jasonswett wrote: post #21

What about London?

Interestingly, London wasn't continuously inhabited since the founding by the Romans, so it wouldn't make this particular list. I was quite surprised when I learned this fact recently, visiting the Museum of London.

"By the 5th century, the Roman Empire was in rapid decline and in AD 410, the Roman occupation of Britannia came to an end. Following this, the Roman city also went into rapid decline and by the end of the 5th century was practically abandoned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#98

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

Somewhere roundabout EC2 is the remains of some religious building, with an office built over it. Walk past the big glass windows, double-take then blag your way in politely and admire it. It's a serious chunk of stonework that's literally been built around. It's so peculiar to see the juxtaposition. I think it's related to henry 8th's destructions. Does anyone know it?

I did a search but couldn't find it, what I did find is quite interesting. Take a look at the top picture here https://symbolsandsecrets.london/page/21/

Scroll down for some more of londinium and assorted london relics.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#99

Post by Cyph0n »

cmyr wrote: post #61
Cyph0n wrote: post #36

As a Tunisian, I'm confused by why Carthage is not on the list. Yes, it was destroyed and rebuilt by the Romans, but the general vicinity has been continuously inhabited ever since. Actually, a few other Tunisian cities are missing that trace their origins back to late B.C./early A.D., such as Monastir, Mahdia, and El Jem. Any thoughts on this?

Carthage is listed as "Tangier"? Unless it was just added.

The note there lists that Tangier was founded by the Carthaginians. But Carthage itself was located near modern-day Tunis, the capital of Tunisia.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#100

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

barbegal wrote: post #47
laurent123456 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many awful lists like this on Wikipedia as it seems the criteria for them are a lot less strict than for articles. I guess whoever creates the list can argue that each individual item is sourced, even though the selection of items and their organisation is original research [0], and thus should not be allowed. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I agree, I don't mind lists like "Largest countries" as that is fairly definitive but when you get into subjective lists of things that are hard to properly define, measure or record like "costliest hurricane damage"[1], "longest-living organisms"[2] or "deadliest animals"[3] then the articles become a joke. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_rec... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_…

How would you approach those things? Do we altogether avoid making those lists because they don't fit a strict criteria? I think they serve a very useful purpose and taken in the correct context, are incredibly informative. At the very least it stimulates curiosity which is a positive effect in itself.
Post reply on HN