Talk:List of cities by time of continuous habitation

Archive 1

Dubh Linn/Dyflin/Dublin/Baile Atha Cliath/Eblana

Dublin is actually much older than 841, though the precise age of the city is difficulty to determine. The official Irish founding is 988, but that was technically when Mael Sechnaill II (988-1002, 1014-1022) founded a new city - Baile Atha Cliath - upon his conquest of the Norse Kingdom of Dyflin or Dyfflin, both spellings pronounced "dyoov-linn". 'Dyflin/Dyfflin' was simply the Old Norse translation of the original Irish name for the area, Dubh Linn ("doov linn"), meaning "Black Pool" - a reference to the River Liffey. In the old script, 'Dubh' was and still is written 'Dub' with a dot above the 'b', to represent the 'h'. The English did not know this practice when the settled in the area, so they left out the 'h' and 'Dubh Linn' ("doov LINN") became 'Dublin' ("DUBB-linn")in English.

But the Romans, although they never settled in Ireland, knew Dubh Linn in Latin as 'Eblana'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.56.198 (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete anything after 700 AD!

I'm for deleting all the old-world entries after 700 AD -- they are quite laughable, since they are artificially selected out of tens if not hundreds of thousand settlements which fulfill that criterion: For instance, I know that my home village Hoffenheim has been settled since 773 AD, since the Lorsch codex documents this fact in its histories (as it does with about 1000 other similarly "ancient" settlements). However, nobody cares, since these villages never held more than 10,000 people at any point in time, and 65 generations of settlement is frankly not all that special... -- Marcika (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you miss a lot of cities from around 700-800 AD, like my home city Schleswig (Germany) first mentioned with current name 804 AD but preceding settlement Hedeby at least founded 770 and biggest scandinavian trade town of that time.. not mentioned.. (130.226.234.186 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I agree with the sentiment, but I disagree with the arbritary limit of AD 700. After AD 500 or so, cities should only be listed if they are the oldest in a particular country or region, such as "oldest in Scandinavia", "oldest in the Philippines", etc. Such entries are perfectly relevant and should stay. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Amman

Amman has served as the modern and ancient capital of Jordan. It is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, with a 1994 excavation uncovering homes and towers believed to have been built during the Stone Age, circa 7000 BCE. There are many Biblical references to the city, which by about 1200 BCE had become the Ammonite capital of Rabbath-Ammon. The Ammonites fought numerous wars with Saul, David and others. So Amman should definitely be added to this list!

Skopje

Skopje was inhabited in 4000 B.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.76.112 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"continuous habitation" != "traces of habitation". --dab (𒁳) 18:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Croatia

And where are Vinkovci? Although the area of Vinkovci continuously inhabited since 7000 BC, under different names. This is not even mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drazenvk (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The claims for Pula, Zadar and Nin are remarkably early, although not completely impossible. Still, under WP:REDFLAG, good references will be needed. The references we have are

• Zadar: M. Suić, Prošlost Zadra I, Zadar u starom vijeku, Filozofski fakultet Zadar, 1981.[1] May be quotable in spite of its age, but a page number would be nice.
• Pula: Ivelja-Dalmatin, Ana (2009). Pula. Tourist Monograph. 2005-2009, page 7. Not an acceptable reference even if it did say continuous habitation.
• Nin: some url.

I suggest we can keep Zadar, if a page number and ideally a quote substantiating "continuous habitation" are forthcoming, but Pula and Nin need better references. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"remarkably early, although not completely impossible" - in fact there is significant number of cities (some are villages today) at the eastern Adriatic coast continuously inhabitted from the Late Bronze Age and older Iron Age (~3.000 yrs old), in territory of ex-Liburnia: Arba (Rab), Curicum (Krk), Idassa/Iader (Zadar), Nedinium (Nadin), Asseria (Podgrađe near Benkovac), Aenona (Nin),... Pula in Histria,... However in ancient Dalmatia, the land of Dalmatae, continuous inhabitation was broken mostly in the first centuries AD. I can provide references for any of these, but not immidiatelly. If it's not problem to you, leave them until next week. Zenanarh (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there is no hurry. We really need to restrict this to positive claims of continuous habitation. Obviously, there were permanent settlements all over Europe from at least 6,000 years ago. Many of these settlement sites were re-populated again and again simply because they happened to be suitable for settlement, without any sort of continuity. You will find Neolithic traces of habitation if you dig in most cities of Europe.

The title of "oldest city of Europe [excepting Greece, which was fapp part of the Ancient Near East at the time]" is usually given to Cadiz or other Phoenician settlements, founded around 1100 BC. Any claim of earlier or contemporary foundation of cities that are not associated with Phoenician colonialism will require excellent references. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, dab. In general there is quite a bit of dubious sourcing in this article. I notice a lot of websites of the type www.middleeast.com and such. Not sure what to do about this though. Should dubiously cited cities be removed or left till better sources are found (which may or may not happen). Btw, if you look at Plovdiv, the same dubious claim of 6000 years of continuous habitation is made there using the same source. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would approach this with common sense, and focus on claims that raise WP:REDFLAGs. The claim that Paris was established around the 3rd century BC (La Tene period) is perfectly unexciting and stands to reason. Sure, it would be nice to have a good source, but that should be easy enough to find. It is a different matter with all these cities in the Balkans with claims of foundation of 1000 BC or earlier. These are extraordinary claims and they need extraordinarily good sources. The Plovdiv "reference" is just saying, in a misleading manner, that there are Neolithic settlement traces. The Croatian references are difficult to assess for me. If they explicitly claim continuous habitation, fine, we can state with certainty that the claim has been made. After all, we report on quotable opinions, not on "the truth". I have spent a few minutes googling Pula and it is difficult to get a clear picture. All that can be said with certainty is that it existed in the 1st century BC. Some sources appear to claim that it is a Greek foundation, while others have Greek mythological sources reporting foundation by the Colchians. I found no reliable confirmation of the claim of archaeological evidence pointing to the 10th c. BC so far. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, REDFLAGs is the way to go. So what to do about Byblos and Sidon, which are sourced to websites? Does that raise a red flag? By the way, the lede of Plovdiv still says "One of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities, Plovdiv's history spans some 6,000 years.", which is REDFLAGy and PEACOCKy. I would change it myself, but I am certain it would be considered a hostile act on the part of the Bulgarian editors who watch the page if I were to do it, on account of my ethnicity. Athenean (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

About Pula. You see, this city under that name exists from 1st century BC/AD - Roman conquest. But from 10th century BC to 1st century BC it was Histrian city of different name. For decencies scientists were trying to attach 1 of 2 Histrian names of uncertain location that appeared there in the ancient sources, to this city, and it seems it is finally settled. There is a source for this. Zenanarh (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I mentioned Liburnian Asseria above, my mistake, Croatian village of Podgrađe was built under the hill, Asseria was at the top, there is no continuous inhabitation on that one. Zenanarh (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

One more question, what is time limit for a city to be added to the list? 2.000 yrs ago, 2.500 yrs ago? At the Croatian coast there are also a several cities, continuously inhabitted from the 4th century BC, established as the Greek colonies during Hellenic era, like Pharos (Stari Grad), Issa (Vis), Aspalathos (Split), etc. Zenanarh (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

the limit is not so much on the age of the city as the quality of your source. Make sure you cite reliable, verifiable sources that unambiguously say "continuous habitation". --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jericho, Jerusalem, Hebron, Gaza City

Contrary to a recent editor's (whose contributions seem to suggest that he does not have much history in this topic) edit summaries, these cities are not internationally recognized as being part of any current country. It is not POV to suggest that they are not in a country. On the other hand, it would be POV to suggest that they are part of a country, because the only country that could possibly be considered in the case is Israel, and trust me, there are enough people here to point out the falsity in that. "Palestine" does not control these cities. This so-called state controls no land. It is not a country (sovereign state). I have reached my 3 reverts. I will not be correcting the article and breaching 3RR, but I trust that honest editors will notice the error in the article and make the fix. Breein1007 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

the column title says "Location". The location of Jericho is the West Bank. This holds true no matter what your opinion on the country that may be comprising the West Bank. This is a serious article. Pray take the Middle East conflict elsewhere. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann. I can see why you would want to avoid including "Palestine" after the West Bank in these cases, given that people opposed to its existence tend to revert war it out of the article. However, our entry for Jerusalem has for some time included "Israel/Palestine" after it (given that it is claimed by both countries). Accordingly, it seems logical and consistent to include "Palestine" after indisputably Palestinian cities in the West Bank. No? Tiamut^talk 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I'm not sure if you were addressing the message to me or not, but just to clarify, I agree with you. I am the one who was attempting to label their location as West Bank. To Tiamut above, "Palestine" is not a country. Careful with your terms. Warm regards, Breein1007 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was it removed completely? It was cited that it was continuously inhabited. Unless someone wants to cite a source that it wasn't, it should be re-included. (Since there was a source cited before it was removed saying that it was.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.39.253 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

greetings - I understand that the issue of Palestinian statehood, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict is one that is emotional and often waged in all fora, including wikipedia. However, the column denotes location and as there is no sovereign state named Palestine, labeling these cities as being located there is, in fact, intellectually dishonest. Further, there is not doubt that the Palestinian Authority lays claim to Jerusalem, but that does not in any way affect the sovereignty exercised over the entirety of the municipality and its environs. If one were ot be honest and hedge to the legalistic and technical terminology, at most one would write "Israel" for Jerusalem, and either "Palesitnian Territories" or "West Bank" despite your politics there is not other way to do this without forcing bias upon an open and honest forum.Dahveed323 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yemen cities

How about the old cities of Yemen like Sana'a and Marib? For more information, refer to Ancient history of Yemen--Email4mobile (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Foundation/ Habitation/Constant

This article is turning into a list of cities of "something". It needs heavy cleanup and for all entries to be checked. Just adding a foundation date is not enough, nor is a neolithic date. Continuous habitation is the requisiteMegistias (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cities of Novgorod and Kiev

Veliky_Novgorod is founded in VII century and first was mentioned in 859 A.D. Kiev is belived to be founded in V-VII century. as always 'russian' cities are ignired absolutly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janglog (talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

they can certainly be listed. Just find a quotable source and do it. --dab (𒁳) 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Add population column(s) to eliminate puffery

A common distinction between a "city" and other types of habitation is the number of inhabitants. A current and perhaps a peak population column may throw light on this. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And LOL, Australia is the New World, Eh? That sort of makes a point I think. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"oldest" and "peak population" does not really go together. If anything, population at the date of foundation would be interesting, but also rather difficult to supply. --dab (𒁳) 21:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kotseto1001, 23 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The table is incomplete, as Plovdiv (Bulgaria) was recently proclaimed as the 6th oldest city in the world by British archaeologists in terms of continuous habitation. It exists from around 6000 years ago (or 4000 B.C.) and this is why it should be noted in the table here. Please add a photo too. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/6242644/The-worlds-oldest-cities.html?image=12

city&catid=3:news&Itemid=53 Kotseto1001 (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide more than one reliable source in your request as we need our info to be reliable. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Images can be uploaded at Special:Upload (if you are autoconfirmed) or you can request it at Files for upload. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.151.135.96, 4 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Aarhus is only Denmark's second oldest city founded between 800-900. The oldest city is Ribe, which was founded around 710 and is therefore also Scandinavia's oldest city. 83.151.135.96 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) User:MWOAP/RPP/rs-ques

Wrong..... Ribe is the oldest town.. its a small village with a few thousend inhabitants, but Aarhus is a City with more than 300.000 inhabitants, so it is Scandinavias oldest city, and besides Aarhus was foundes around 770 AD not 800-900.

Shush or Susa

Shush or Susa dates from 3-5,000 BC, and recent city has population of 65,000. Sources:

• 5000 BC, Jona Lendering, reputable Dutch historian (more literature given at link bottom).
• 3500 BC, Cambridge history of Iran, authors: William Bayne Fisher and Ilya Gershevitch, page 4.
• 3000 BC, Encyclopædia Iranica, Western encyclopedia on English language, article written by Hermann Gasche from Ghent University.

Note: there is one good article with further explanation - here; according "Jericho/Damascus standards" you can put even 7,000 BC, but I rather prefer 3,500 BC because it's the most reliable. Interesting thing is that it's by far oldest city in the World which held the same name from earliest time till today ("Damascus" date from 15 century BC, "Jericho" even later).--93.143.54.53 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I noticed that some "genius" Athenean deleted Susa because "it was destroyed by Mongols". Yes it did, but rebuild few years after and city still stands today. By the same standards you can delete his city of Athens because it was razed in 480 BC by Persians for period of few months, or Jericho which was severally time abandoned for decades/centuries. --93.143.54.53 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I've found there was already discussion here about Susa where Susian guy explained everything. I suggest to "erasers" to read archive more carefully next time before deletion! --93.143.54.53 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Plovdiv, Bulgaria

British archaeologists have proclaimed the second-largest city in Bulgaria, Plovdiv, to be the sixth oldest city in the world.

Plovdiv shares the sixth spot in the ranking, compiled by the British The Daily Telegraph, together with Faiyum in Egypt and Sidon in Lebanon.

The article points out that the earliest inhabitation in Plovdiv dates back to 4,000 BC. The city was originally a Tracian settlement before becoming a major Roman city. It later fell into Byzantine and Ottoman hands, before becoming part of Bulgaria.

"The city is a major cultural centre and boasts many ancient remains, including a Roman amphitheatre and aqueduct, and Ottoman baths," the Daily Telegraph points out.

The article cites the Roman writer Lucian saying:"This is the biggest and loveliest of all cities. Its beauty shines from faraway."

The ranking is topped by the city of Jericho, located in Palestine, which was founded in 9000 BC. In ancient times it was surrounded by stone wall and it lived between 1000 and 1500 residents. The town is located near the Jordan River in the West Bank and its population is currently around 20 000 people.

The leader is followed by the city of Byblos, founded in 5000 BC in Lebanon and Aleppo, which share the third place with Damascus, Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.25.225 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 201.228.49.47, 21 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please investigate adding Santa Marta, Colombia to the list of cities by time of continuous habitation (New world). Santa Marta is the oldest Spanish settlement in Colombia, established in July 29, 1525.

201.228.49.47 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this claim. Algebraist 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kyiv?

It is believed that Kiev was founded in 482 CE.. it must be included here too, perhaps? --Dennis714 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No unfortunately it is not. The legend of the city of Kiev foundation (Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv) refer to later date, - approximately VII and archaeologists surveys shows that the city itself was formed VIII—X. The 482 AD is the date that only Mayor of Kiev believes, that's why celebration of 1500 age took place in 1982. Unfortunately it is not more than advertise. According to scientific point of view there is some excavation shows settlements in the Kiev area probably refer to V. Unfortunately there no reason to suppose this places being a source of Kiev nor a city at all. Also there no facts to support of the hypotheses of continuous habitation starting from V. Dbuldakov (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

troy

why is troy not even included on this list. according to stearns ap world history book troy is the oldest CITY, dateing back to 2900 bce. unlike jericho and damascus, troy was a city at this time. jericho is the oldest village. damascus wasnt a city untill the 1000's bce when the Armenians took over. At 2900 bce troy was a habitation that met the standards for a city, meaning it was larger than a small village of only around 100 people. if anything it should at least be on the list. Cseal (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)seal

I believe "continuous habitation" is the issue here. Troy doesn't exist now, among other things. john k (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

List of notable cities by time of continuous habitation

How about a list of some of the world's most notable and populous cities by time of continuous habitation? I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison of Berlin, New York City, London, Tokyo, Paris, etc. listed together. Also, I wonder if there's any authoritative list out there separating cities by age into categories (ancient, very old, old, middle-aged, new, very new, etc.) Example: Jerusalem - ancient, London and Paris - very old, Venice - old, Mexico City, Tokyo, and New York - middle aged, San Francisco and Los Angeles - new, Anchorage and Las Vegas - very new, or something of that sort. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a comparison list of capitals. It would be interesting. I don't know about the separating into categories. Ancient, old, etc. would have to be arbitrarily set up by us and that wouldn't be good. 207.118.123.53 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I wasn't logged in properly... NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NYC is not a capital Dbuldakov (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Ife listed twice?

I assume that the City was destroyed and rebuilt a millennia later —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jericho: Continuously inhabited or not?

Why is Jericho listed as being continuously inhabited if it states in the notes that sometimes it was "uninhabited for hundreds of years at a time". Being uninhabited for hundreds of years more than once is not continuous, it is positively sporadic. Perhaps a new article is required: List of Cities by Time of Known Existence. Either that, or the definition of "continuous habitation" should be made clear at the beginning of the article.ForkieTMS (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Milton Keynes. Are you joking?

Milton Keynes. Built in 1967. Why is it even mentioned? Examples of new cities are not needed in this article.ForkieTMS (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m going to remove it, it’s clearly not befitting the character of the article. — tooki (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I Agree Milton Keynes it was correct to remove from the List. However, this more because the fact that it is not accentually a city rather than the date of it its founding. --EditMonkey (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Aia(Aea)

Why this city isn't included? It was the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Colchis. Archeological evidence indicates that the city functioned as the capital of the kingdom of Colchis as early as the second millennium BC. It is widely believed by historians that when Apollonius Rhodius was writing about Jason and the Argonauts and their legendary journey to Colchis, Kutaisi/Aia was the final destination of the Argonauts and the residence of King Aeëtes. you see? it was founded in 2nd millenium BC and is one of the oldest cities and older than any city of Europe. It definitely should be included on that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aro777 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. "It was the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Colchis." Key word *was*, past tense. This article is for oldest *continuously inhabited* cities in the world. I'm not sure if there's an article yet for the oldest cities in the world that were destroyed or abandoned, but such an article would be enormous, and would be mostly speculative as it would be based on archaeology and not written records. Klopek007 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Klopek007- But this city exists to this day and there are no records that mention that this city was ever destroyed-it still exists,only with a different name Kutaisi.Please check this page on wikipedia and you'll change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aro777 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Istanbul/Byzantium is in Europe not mid East

Why is Istanbul/Byzantium under the section mid East???, the city has always been a european city and the old city of Istanbul/Byzantium lies entirely within the european continent. this city needs to get under the European section, Istanbul/Byzantium is a european city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.135 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment.. Istanbul has always been a European city.

Fact about Turkey

membership in organizations such as the Council of Europe, NATO, Turkey began full membership negotiations with the European Union in 2005, having been an associate member of the European Economic Community since 1963 and having reached a customs union agreement in 1995.

All turkish sport associations are part of the European sport associations.

history of istanbul

when the settlers from Megara, under the command of King Byzas, established Byzantion (Latinised as Byzantium) on the European side of the Bosphorus. By the end of the century, an acropolis was established at the former locations of Lygos and Semistra, on the Sarayburnu. Byzantium then continued as part of the Athenian League and its successor, the Second Athenian Empire, before ultimately gaining independence in 355 BC.[25] Long protected by the Roman Republic, Byzantium officially became a part of the Roman Empire in AD 73.

When Constantine I defeated Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis in September 324, he effectively became the emperor of the whole of the Roman Empire. Just two months later, Constantine laid out the plans for a new, Christian city to replace Byzantium. Intended to replace Nicomedia as the eastern capital of the empire, the city was named Nea Roma (New Rome), however, most simply called it Constantinople ("the city of Constantine"), a name that persisted into the 20th century. Six years later, on 11 May 330, Constantinople was proclaimed the capital of an empire that eventually became known as the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire.

Constantinople's location ensured its existence would stand the test of time; for many centuries, its walls and seafront protected Europe against invaders from the east as well as from the advance of Islam. During most of the Middle Ages and the latter part of the Byzantine period, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city in the western world.

Following the fall of Constantinople, to the turks in 1453 AD Mehmed II immediately set out to revitalize the city, now also known as Istanbul. He invited and forcibly resettled many Muslims, Jews, and Christians from other parts of Anatolia into the city, creating a cosmopolitan society that persisted through much of the Ottoman period. By the end of the century, Istanbul had returned to a population of two hundred thousand, making it the second-largest city in Europe. Meanwhile, Mehmed II repaired the city's damaged infrastructure and began to build the Grand Bazaar. Also constructed during this period was Topkapı Palace, which served as the official residence of the sultan for four hundred years.

Istanbul is European.. always was.. always will be. ____________________________________________________

Also Yerevan (Armenia) has nothing to do with Europe but listed under that section. Any ideas? 212.253.152.154 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that. Yerevan have to remove from Europe section to Middle East section.--Ollios (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Jamestown is not continuously inhabited

The title is list of cities by time of continuous habitation, but many of the cities in The New World table is not continuously inhabited.--Rochelimit (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Some parts of this are just impossible

We can't list many prehistoric cities by time of continuous habitation simply because we don't know. Take Damascus, which the list says is the earliest, but then talks about 1400 BC. I looked at the article for Damascus which clearly says "However, evidence of settlement in the wider Barada basin dating back to 9000 BC exists, although no large-scale settlement was present within Damascus walls until the second millennium BC." which is p. 2 of Burns, Ross (2005), Damascus: A History, Routledge, ISBN 0415271053, 9780415271059, http://books.google.com/?id=1_bQTrpf62cC&dq=damascus . I'm tempted to take this to AfD as an impossible list. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 142.245.193.11, 10 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hi, What about the ancient city of Mtzkheta in Georgia (Caucasus) that was established in 1000 BC, and has been continuously populated.

Could you please update your list?

Thx.

142.245.193.11 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from chornox, 10 Jan 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hi, I think the Syrian city Hama should be included in the list because it were evidence of its inhabitation since 2000BC. Source: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-oldest-cities-in-the-world.htm. Also you can get some insight on how old Hama is from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama :) Thanks,

Wisegeek is not a reliable source. Our article says "Although the town appears to be unmentioned in sources before the first millennium BC,[2] the site appears to have enjoyed great prosperty around 1500 BC". The issue would be when did the settlement become a city, Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the criteria of choosing a good site but here is a biblical references to Hamath which is Hama/Hamah currently. http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=HAMMATH. Can you please specify what kind of references you think is good. Do I really need to find a real study of the origin of Hama city or I need to show that Hama was inhabited city during that time from different sources? The biblical reference shows that the city Hama which mean the fortress was an active city and was conquered by different kings for example. Chornox (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Another reference to support its historical activities around 850BC http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/SyriaAlep.htm

Yet a source confirms that Hamath was a city since at least 1800BC http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/SyriaHamath.htm

I hope these sources are reliable and good to go to add Hama/Hamah/Hamath to its rightful list of the oldest cities in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chornox (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources stating when an area became a city are required

I think that dates in the list shouldn't reflect when an area now a city was first inhabited but when it became a city. Many cities are in places that had earlier sporadic habitation - in fact all cities are almost certainly in such areas simply because of their size. Although when I started this section I was going to talk about how archaeologists and historians define cities, I quickly rejected that because if we did that it would be original research. Thus we have to rely on what reliable sources say about when a place became a city. Without that we shouldn't be adding dates. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Africa

I note that Cairo and Tunis are missing from the list, not to mention Fes and Timbuktu. Is there a reason for this? Peridon (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - also it's ridiculous that cities founded in the 19th century are included. Since Africa is the cradle of mankind there must be settlements here which have been in continuous occupation for a very long time.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Celilo

What about Celilo? Not much of a city (like some others in this list) but still inhabited after 15,000 years! https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Celilo_Falls Paul Bonneau (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The old Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian towns

The old Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian towns. Almost all people lived continuously and now too. Articles in Russian, but the dates are clear, is not it?? Medieval Russia

And there are many other, for example: Derbent Kerch Chersonese, now part of Sevastopol Theodosius, now part of Sevastopol Daryenka (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Daryenka

all ancient Slavic cities from the link "Medieval Russia" you provides was founded IX and later.

Chersonesos Taurica is not a city of continuous habitation. It was ruined XV-XVI and no more people leaves there till now in spite of the fact that the ruins of the city currently on the territory of Sevastopol, that was founded XVIII.

Feodosiya is about 100 miles far from Sevastopol and newer was the part of it.

Derbent, according to the page that you refer to is a settlement of continuous habitation from 438 only, in spite of the fact that first settlements in the area near modern Derbent was founded about 8 BC

Dbuldakov (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Padua

My inclusion of Padua was of course not due to the simple legend of its foundation (as written, it is just a legend); but seeing that, believing to someone, it was just a fishermen village in IV century B.C. it is really absurd, I have never read anything like that! Also because it always was inside the plain, not on the sea.

As you can read here: Ancient history of Padua, archeological findings confirm that there was an hurban settlement since XII century B.C. During the following centuries, the town became an important trading center (ancient Venetian merchants traded goods from the Baltic area to the Greek world) also famous for horse husbandry and for wool production.

There is another legendary event, but this time in 302 B.C. when Paduans defeated Spartan raiders who came from the Adriatic Sea.

I will then try to find better sources about the ancient history of Padua, but I will likely have to look for them on books and not on the net. Then, if I will find them, I will proceed by reinserting the city among the others.

Filippo83 (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Books are good if they meet our criteria at WP:RS (which the one I saw about the fishing village did not, in my opinion). Be sure to include page numbers, see WP:CITE. This article is a bit of a mess. For most cities, and all prehistorical ones, an exact date is not going to be possible. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Athens unsourced

The two sources that are supposed to verify the age of Athens don't work. One can't be proven and the other is a broken link --Cradel (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly well sourced, just because it's not available online doesn't mean it's "unsourced". I recommend you go to a library near you. Athenean (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying "oh yes it is" is not enough. You must provide references, not just a "go get them at the library".--Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sidon

Going through some of the terrible sources, I have spent some time searching for a date for Sidon. I found http://www.sidonexcavation.org/ which is an official excavation site, but a quick search found nothing although there may be something in one of the reports. Certainly we can't use a tourist site, and the 4000 date is too early for a city claim. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Carthage

¿Isn't Carthage word mentioning in Africa? --Crio de la Paz (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Oldest cities" category needs cleanup

Seriously, a discussion of the "oldest continuously inhabited cities" should be pared down considerably, there should be serious archaeological data that these are "cities" at the early dates given, also anything later than around 1000 BC in the old world, c. 1 AD in the New world, does not fall into the category of earliest cities. Squidface tony (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC) You guys miss cities of Peru (Is this ignonance?)

Istanbul is is Europe, the asian side were not Istanbul but known as a city called Chrysopolis (now Üsküdar)

We need know to remove Istanbul from mideast to Europe, it has at any given time been a city located in Thrace i the Balkans, the city of Istanbul first incorperated the Asian side in the 20th century, before this the urban area on the asian side were not Istanbul but known as a city called Chrysopolis (now Üsküdar) The historic center of Istanbul are entirely in Europe, so lets put it where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.78.204 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Malaga, Spain

Málaga is one of the oldest european cities in the world. It was founded by the Phoenicians as Malaka about 770 BC. --Aspirecountry (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Aspirecountry, 11 August 2011

| Málaga | Iberia |Spa Andalusia, Spain |-750 ! 8th century BC | founded as Phoenician Malaka.

--Aspirecountry (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 7:10 pm, 10 August 2011, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

Edit request from Aspirecountry, 12 August 2011

| Málaga | Iberia |Spa Andalusia, Spain |-750 ! 8th century BC | founded as Phoenician Malaka.

--Aspirecountry (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

| Adana | Anatolia |Tr Adana, Turkey |-1400 1400 BC | it is a hittie city

| Antakya | Anatolia |Tr Antakya, Turkey |-300 300 BC | Antioch

| Antalya | Anatolia |Tr Antalya, Turkey |-200 200 BC | Attallia

| Gaziantep | Anatolia |Tr Gaziantep, Turkey |-4000 4000 BC |

| Konya | Anatolia |Tr Konya, Turkey |-3000 3000 BC | medieval name is Iconium

| Manisa | Anatolia |Tr Manisa, Turkey |-1200 1200 BC | Magnesia --Ollios (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Old Cities in present Germany missing

There is mention of Trier alone (30 BC) - Old Celtic towns/cities were - Ara Ubiorum = Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium [Köln] - Colonia Ulpia Traiana / Vetera [cf. Hagen von Tronje / Xanten near Duisburg] - Duromagus [Dormagen near Cologne] - Rîgomagús [Remagen near Coblence] - Moguntiâcum [Mayence] - Borbetomagus [Worms near Port-Louis] - Noviomagus Civitas Nemetum {ad Spîram} [Speyer near Port-Louis] - Cambodûnum [Kempten near Augsburg] -Radaspona --> Ratisbona [Regensburg] - Vindonissa [Windisch in Aargau] and a good deal more. All of them were Celtic OPPIDA - not mere villages - and they were NOT Roman foundations. Nuremberg October 1st, 2011 angel.garcia2001@googlemail.com 87.158.150.20 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Cagliari

Cagliari, Italy (capital city of Sardinia) should definitely be on the list. It was continuously inhabited since its foundation in the seventh century BC as a Phoenician colony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.142.156 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nijmegen

Actually there is no evidence that Nijmegen has been continuously inhabited since the Roman era. Especially inhabitation during the early middle ages is completely absent. Maybe it should be replaced with Maastricht, where evidence of continuous inhabitation since the Roman era and possibly before has been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.197.231 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

The "List of cities by time of continuous habitation" is incomplete.

The city of Mtskheta in the Republic of Georgia dates back to 1000 BC and has been continuously populated.

Please refer to the Wikipedia article 'Mtskheta' and add the city to the list of the cities to make it more comprehensive.

Thanks.

142.245.193.11 (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mtskheta

• - Y Done - Youreallycan (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from User:Dbuldakov

Kerch (Bospor)

Kerch#History:

Kerch as a city starts its history in 7th century BC...

The history section of the city page contains description of continuous habitation of the city. Please, update the list.

Dbuldakov (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Feodosiya (Theodosia, Caffa or Kaffa)

Feodosiya#History:

The city was founded as Theodosia (Θεοδοσία) by Greek colonists from Miletos in the 6th century BC...

The history section of the city page contains description of continuous habitation of the city. Please, update the list.

Dbuldakov (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (Ophiusa, Tyras, Album Castrum, Asperon, Akkerman, Cetatea Alba)

Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi was founded at 6th century BC and newer was completely ruined.

please update the list

Dbuldakov (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Colchester

You have included a new English towns but not Colchester. Given that Colchester is one of Britain's oldest towns with a history significantly pre-dating Roman Britain, I think it should be included no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.53.105 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1000 CE: lots of adding to do

If you intend to list cities founded in Europe up to 1000 CE/AD, you have a lot of adding to do.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to give an idea, and sticking to Portugal:

• Braga - founded by the romans in 16 BCE as Bracara Augusta. Human occupation since the Neolithic.
• Coimbra - Founded by the romans as Aeminium (date?) on a previous settlement.
• Silves Municipality, Portugal - Roman Cilpes, minted coin during the roman presence in the 1st century BCE. Arab Xelb. Human occupation since before 1000 BCE.
• Porto - First mints its own coin circa 585. Human occupation since 880-500 BCE.
• Lamego - Roman Lamaecus. Minted coin in 612-621 during the reign of Sisebuto.

--Xyzt1234 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the dab for Silves (remember, the date has to be when we can reasonably call it a city, not when it was a settlement, which has been the problem with some entries). But it looks as though all of these can be included. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)