List of oldest continuously inhabited cities • Hacker News Board

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#181

Post by perl4ever » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 12:46 AM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #107

austincheney wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I think if you downgrade the definition of city to any grouping of animal skin tents, then the entire exercise loses meaning because those were everywhere.

On the other hand, before 3-4000 years ago, the largest "city" in the world probably wasn't even 100,000 people. So you go back far enough anywhere and the cities were more like villages if that.

It's interesting that the biggest cities plateaued at about 1 million from about 100 BCE to 1800 CE, until the industrial revolution kicked in.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#182

Post by S4M » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 12:53 AM UTC

carlob wrote: post #164

Bayart wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm from Italy and here we are taught a linear history shooting like a bullet from the Romans to Renaissance (mostly glossing over the Middle Ages), and that has important political consequences in what it means to identify as an Italian. As a Frenchman I have always found Italians identifying so strongly to Romans a bit creepy. I've had very heated conversations with people who wouldn't balk from the notion that «…

And most French I know have this weird notion they somehow won WWII because the true French government was in London ;)

I am French and I don't think that at all, nor do I know anybody who thinks like that.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#183

Post by ivanhoe » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

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…

Well, Belgrade is not nearly that old as Yerevan, although in its broader area were some of the oldest settlements in Europe, more than 7000 years old. However todays Belgrade fortress (called Kalemegdan) sits on the very same place where Celts built their fortification around 300 BC. In 2nd century BC Romans turned it into their city called Singidunum. Most of the today's fortress walls are from the medieval and later times, but some parts of the Roman walls are still visible today, and the big Roman well that was used to supply the city with water still exists and it's open to tourists. Unfortunately most of the roman structures outside the fortress are nowadays under the modern city of Belgrade, but the position and the layout of the fortress didn't change much. Danube and Sava rivers still run under it and the hill looks the same, so I presume that some ancient tourists wouldn't have hard time to recognize it immediately.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#184

Post by jedberg » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

There is some definite bias here. I can assure you that San Diego was inhabited by the native people long before 1789. They might not have called it San Diego, but they certainly had a concept of settlement.

1789 is more like their colonization year, not their settlement year.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#185

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

anonu wrote: post #105

impendia wrote: post #11

I 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.

Phoenicians as well. And the Canaanites [1] before them. Byblos is indeed an ancient city. It's believed that the first inhabitants were there around 8000BCE. Today's vestiges in Byblos are maybe younger than 500BCE though.. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

[deleted]

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#186

Post by klyrs » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #134

elorant wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well heritage is a double edged sword. From one hand you do feel proud and blessed to live in a place so rich in history because it's everywhere around you. But in the same time it's kind of a burden that drags society in worshiping the past. A lot of fellow Greeks live on the premises that because our past was so glorious everyone else is dipshit and we shouldn't even bother finding our place in the modern world.

Mmm. I’ve only seen one country that doesn’t collectively see its history with gold-tinted glasses — yet even here, there are people like my landlord, who has told me he didn’t understand why the DDR fell despite being a student in it.

Kinda depends who you talk to. For many americans, the slave trade and genocide of indigenous peoples are key, and embarrassing, chapters of our history. American children are taught very differently, largely according to the ruling party in their state.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/12/us/texas-vs-c...

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#187

Post by 205guy » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

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…

My favorite in this category is Damascus. What makes it special is that the old city is mentioned in the Bible, including the "street called Straight." That street still exists.

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

On a tangent: I love it when an article shows up on HN that is already greyed out, meaning I've seen it before.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#188

Post by namenotrequired » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:19 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #176

throwaway8879 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick. Socrates was given a choice. His decision to kill himself was his own. I'd probably do the same. He was 70+ anyway. A lifetime of annoying dialectic tends to make lots of enemies quickly.

What was the choice? Wasn’t he sentenced to death?

They sentenced him to death to force him to leave the city. No one expected him to decide to die rather than leave.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#189

Post by nl » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

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?

I think it "continuously inhabited" is a blurry line. Jericho (listed) has notes about how it was destroyed a number of times, and lists the time it has been definitely continuously inhabited since.

But I'd certainly expect Carthage to be listed with notes about it's destruction and reconstruction - although I'd note there must be lots of cities founded ~500BCE+ that have been continuously inhabited.

Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

#190

Post by namenotrequired » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

sterlind wrote: post #168

jgwil2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language is constantly changing. No one alive 2000 years ago would be able to readily communicate in a modern vernacular, so I don't think that's a good standard on which to judge.

iirc modern Icelandic is somewhat mutually intelligible with old Norse, to the point where students can read 1200+ year old Viking writings with only a gloss, like we might read Shakespeare. Icelandic is unusual among languages for this though.

Persian (Farsi) is another example.