This list seems hardly complete. There’s no mention of Central Asia for instance.
I spotted Afghanistan which is pretty damn Central Asian.
List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
31–40 of 224 posts
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#32Earlier 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.
It's a list of old cities. Of course it's not going to mention a people who didn't have cities. It doesn't mention stone age European or Asian nomads either.
I'm also confused at your 14,000 years comment... this isn't the age of any particular polity or ethnic group; just the amount of time since people settled North America. Across the old world, comparable tribes lived for much, much longer. And in Africa you can go back even further.
What exactly do you think should have happened here? Simply not allow lists of old cities? Or perhaps put in special entries for nomad tribes even though they're not, you know, cities? What's the goal that would have made sense but also made you happy?
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
...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.
Hey Mr. Strawman! I just made an observation - there are many older stable populations, than older stable named cities. Keep your owly comments to yourself.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#34What 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 city, the name is pronounced very similar (pronounced Erebuni vs. now pronounced Erevan.) If you traveled a bit forward in time, to 400-something CE, then a modern inhabitant of Yerevan could even read the ancient writing in the city!
Compare that with cities like Puning, China (to quote Wikipedia: "The history of human settlement in Puning can be traced back to the Neolithic Age".) Rich history, but I guarantee that someone from 2,000 years ago would have no idea where they are. (That's certainly not all of China, though, many places haven't experienced that much change.)
Anyone know more of these cities, where it'd be obvious to the ancient inhabitants that it was the same city?
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#35What about London?
It’s odd that London isn’t listed yet there are a bunch that are only a couple of hundred years old
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#36As 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?
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#37So, Lisbon is older than Rome, TIL!
It is very common, in downtown Lisbon, when doing some escavations to renovate some building foundations to find traces/layers of older civilizations. A famous case was in the 90's when renovating the headquarters of Millenium Bank. The remains were preserved (under the building) and you can actually visit them nowadays[1].
[1] https://www.lisbonlux.com/lisbon/nucleo-arqueologico.html
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#38This 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…
> populations that have had continuous populations
This misses the point because this isn't about continuity of population in terms of lineage, just perpetual inhabitation. A city such as Sicily over time has exchanged hands and transformed culture many, many times. Cities are cosmopolitan. Demographics change, and culture is not static. It was not for nomadic tribes either. What we can find for them, however, are relics tied to a certain point in time, to a certain place, describing a certain nomadic culture. They are certainly not the same as those persisting today, whether there is some lineage or otherwise.
It also reads funny; what makes them continuous, you mean they did not partake in interracial mingling? We don't know how continuous they really were. We only know that nomadic lifestyle existed a long time, and ultimately is the precursor of settlements; humanity was of course once entirely nomadic, therefore we all have nomadic ancestors. Fukuyama would suggest that centralized agriculture was developed to increase population in order to wage war, which eventually grew enough to necessitate bureaucracy.
> mere mention of nomads would create such a passionate backlash!
I don't see any. Maybe it's something you're feeling?
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#39In the '70s and '80s when Japan was booming there was a popular meme that they were advantaged by having their cities destroyed in the war so were able to rebuild them along more modern lines. I don't know if it's true but it seems plausible.
In Stranger in a Strange Land, Michael Valentine Smith talks about the Martian habit of abandoning places when the memories became too intense to tolerate.
If we earthlings were repulsed by places with too much history such old places would have a limited lifespan. While we'd lose out on the context of history, we'd escape some of the deep ruts of blind tradition and be less buried by sedimentary layers of "that's how we've always done it."
War is a terrible evil, but at least it tends to breaks up such ossified remains. If we defeat war, we should look for other mechanisms to till the soil to promote new growth.
Re: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
#40"Continuously" is a word that lets a lot of institutions claim to be the oldest or longest running thing. I feel like I've been to a dozen restaurants that make this claim.