
List of oldest continuously inhabited cities - ag8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities
======
owenversteeg
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
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?

~~~
DictumMortuum
Born and raised Athenian here, oldest capital of Europe.

Downtown Athens and most of the suburbs are filled with ancient and byzantine
ruins, despite the damage that wars, christians and muslims did.

I've watched plays in millennia old theaters. This is damn powerful.

~~~
y-c-o-m-b
Slightly off topic, but playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey brought out an
infatuation with Greece within me. I am truly envious of your Greek heritage
and that you get to enjoy such a rich history, a relatively secular society,
and gorgeous scenic areas. I am actually Persian and although we also have a
rich history and scenic lands, I find Greece and Greek history far more
appealing. Getting to explore many facets of ancient Greece in Assassin's
Creed Odyssey has been an absolute treat.

EDIT: a word

~~~
elorant
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.

~~~
ben_w
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.

~~~
AftHurrahWinch
Having conversations with people in South Africa, Ghana, and Rwanda about
their country's history felt a lot like talking to Germans.

Lots of nuance.

------
TriNetra
Indian history hasn't been well researched because of various reasons.
However, recent efforts are pushing back continuous settlement dates by multi-
thousand of years. For instance: Varanasi is in above wiki link with 1200 BC
as inhabited since. However [0] pushes it back to at least 4500 BC.

0: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Varanasi-
is...](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Varanasi-is-as-old-as-
Indus-valley-civilization-finds-IIT-KGP-study/articleshow/51146196.cms)

>>> The results that have come from a detailed geo-exploration (exploration
conducted through GPS technology) conducted by seven IIT-Kgp departments,
tracing the different stages through which civilization progressed, and how
Varanasi has been able to maintain continuity as a living civilization, unlike
comparable seats of human settlement in the world. The researchers have dug
100-metre-deep boring holes all over Varanasi to conclude that there is
evidence of continuous settlement at least till 2000BC. There are enough
indications that by the time the data collection is over, there would be
enough to prove that this date can be pushed back to about 4500BC.The oldest
part of this civilisation has been traced to the Gomati Sangam area of
Varanasi, as indicated by the underground layers that have already been
tested.

~~~
c54
Why hasn’t Indian history been better researched as you say? Curious about
this.

~~~
dilippkumar
I started studying Indian history and I immediately ran into problems.

The first one is language - in the region I am interested in (the southern
parts of India) - primary sources appear in several different languages. It's
not sufficient to have passing familiarity with a language - a ton of these
ancient writers were poets trying to out-do each other with their skills at
crafting verses. To research Indian history, one must learn several languages.

As someone who isn't trying to actively research history, secondary sources
suffice for me. But then, one runs into the next big hurdle there. There have
been very few authors writing about south Indian history post Independence. In
1928 (if I recall correctly), someone at the University of Madras wrote a PhD
thesis on the Pallavas. I haven't been able to find any other material focused
on the Pallavas published since then. Oh, and the 1928 PhD thesis - there's
only a handful of those copies in the really large libraries around the world.
A low quality scan of one of these copies has made it to the internet - and
that remains my best source of information on the Pallava dynasty.

Then there are people like the Khalbaras - a bunch of rulers who came out of
nowhere and ended up dominating 3 superpowers in that region. Yet, these guys
didn't leave behind any historical record and only passing references to them
as "the imprisoners of 3 crown princes" remain as tombstones and signposts for
a group of rulers who would have to take down armies of war elephants multiple
times to get to that point.

There are also open problems of Chronology in several important periods (for
example, the era covered by the Sangam literature - Karikala and all those
guys). This is basically a group of poems that record history in disconnected
joints. (It's not known how much of this is real history and how much is
invented by poets). We have the pieces of a puzzle, with possibly some fake
pieces, but we don't know how you'd arrange them in a timeline.

And then, there's the wars. Anyone who studies Indian history will quickly
realize that Gandhi is an extreme anomaly. In southern India, it was a matter
of pride for a king to die in battle. Imagine a culture where the rulers have
cultural incentives to be _suicidally_ belligerent (with War Elephants!!!).
Now imagine a world where that is the cultural norm for over a thousand years.
These rulers were warriors and the literature that they encouraged were mostly
poets who wrote verses praising various military exploits. Several of these
kingdoms emerge and disappear all the time - and they all chose different
languages as the court language, several of them invented their own alphabets
(looking at you Pallavas), they all straight up lied in several records. It's
a lifetime's task to sort out 300 years of history for an area half the size
of Germany.

Then, to make matters worse, almost all historical artifacts from south India
were removed from the temples and forts that they have been found and made
their way to various collectors and museums in Britan during the Britsh Raj.
If you want to study south Indian history, a trip to a museum in London will
give you a lot more than walking around endlessly in South India.

Then there's the lack of funding. It's absolutely embarrassing how little the
various historians in India earn. Lately, I've been finding more books by
historians in America (and even Japan) than those written by people in India.

Then you have the frauds like Sanjeev Sanyal who destroy history by mixing up
well established history and his own opinions on history and using the
authenticity of the accepted history to add credibility to his baseless
opinions.

Studying Indian history is hard.

~~~
Uhhrrr
> Studying Indian history is hard.

But the way you write about it makes it sound fascinating, too! Could you
recommend a couple good books in English?

~~~
dilippkumar
> good books

Unfortunately, I don't know any that I can recommend as being a "good" book
(which is again part of the problem).

There are a couple of really dry academic books that you can read if you're
sufficiently motivated -

1\. The Cholas by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri [https://www.amazon.com/Colas-Most-
Comprehensive-Written-Chol...](https://www.amazon.com/Colas-Most-
Comprehensive-Written-Cholas/dp/B072Y356N1)

2\. Politics, Kingship and Poetry in Medieval South India by Whitney Cox
[https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Kingship-Poetry-Medieval-
Sou...](https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Kingship-Poetry-Medieval-
South/dp/1107172373)

3\. South India under The Cholas by Y. Subbarayalu
[https://www.amazon.com/South-India-Under-Cholas-
Subbarayalu/...](https://www.amazon.com/South-India-Under-Cholas-
Subbarayalu/dp/0198077351)

4\. A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of
Vijayanagar by K. A Nilakanta Sastri [https://www.amazon.com/History-South-
India-Prehistoric-Vijay...](https://www.amazon.com/History-South-India-
Prehistoric-Vijayanagar/dp/0195606868)

------
Cyph0n
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?

~~~
netcan
Marhabat. This particular list is pretty strict on the "continuous" criteria.
I guess when the Romans plowed salt into it, continuity was broken, for the
purposes of this list.

Carthage _does_ make this list.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_through...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history)

It was the world's biggest city circa 300BC.

~~~
Cyph0n
Marahba!

Yeah, it's either that, or the fact that Tunis (the new capital) was founded
10 miles away after the Umayyads took Carthage from the Byzantines (mentioned
by u/scythe).

~~~
asdff
incidentally, the ancient harbor is now a part of the modern tunisian suburbs:
[https://goo.gl/maps/bFty3LBqkJ5DTdG88](https://goo.gl/maps/bFty3LBqkJ5DTdG88)

------
ginko
Splitting these by continent is somewhat disingenuous since many of the oldest
civilizations and settlements are at the intersection of Africa, Asia and
Europe.

~~~
laurent123456
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)

~~~
barbegal
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-
living_organis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-
living_organisms#Animals)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_h...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_humans)

~~~
y-c-o-m-b
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.

~~~
dwohnitmok
An age old question.

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philos...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies)

------
impendia
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.

~~~
ronyfadel
I’m from a town nearby. It’s a shame how the ruins have been left filthy and
unattended. A Phoenician king’s tomb from multiple millenia BCE is littered
with cans of soda and plastic bottles.

When I brought friends from Europe to see Lebanon, we saw, I kid you not, the
tour guide throwing an empty plastic water bottle down the crater that held
sarcophagi.

------
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.

~~~
ardit33
The famous Pelasgian civilization, that we don't know much about....

------
yongjik
I guess that the criterion for inclusion is "does anyone have a vested
interest in including their own city and is persistent enough to fight their
way through edit wars." That is, it's a fun list, but shouldn't be considered
authoritative of anything.

E.g., Seoul shouldn't be there. The ancient capital of Wiryeseong was a
separate city that was abandoned in the middle ages (in fact we aren't even
sure exactly where it was), and the most likely location is on the other side
of the river from Seoul's old city area: the (suspected) Wiryeseong area
wasn't part of Seoul until 1963.

------
lisper
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 project wasn't completed until very
recently. Sydney only goes back to 1788 and Canberra to 1913, almost within
living memory. I don't think humanity is anywhere near coming to grips with
this new reality.

~~~
austincheney
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.

~~~
koheripbal
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.

~~~
perl4ever
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.

------
hirundo
In 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.

~~~
fhars
For unknown reasons, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to burn down their
settlements every 75-80 years:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon)

------
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/](https://symbolsandsecrets.london/page/21/)

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

------
AdmiralAsshat
Since Damascus is on the list, it's worth noting that some of the building
techniques that possibly originated thousands of years ago are still in use in
some remote Syrian villages.

See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_roof_shapes#/media/Fil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_roof_shapes#/media/File:Traditional_adobe_beehive_architecture_of_Syria.jpg)

[https://syrianvoicesmediationandart.wordpress.com/2016/04/04...](https://syrianvoicesmediationandart.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/syrian-
beehive-dome-building-and-plans/comment-page-1/)

------
fit2rule
Thats nice. What about the oldest school, though?

Garbarnmumg:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabarnmung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabarnmung)

28,000 years of teaching the next generation agriculture and animal husbandry.

------
phkahler
Reading through the comments I see people from all over the world offering
insights about various places. Then I realised all the comments here are in
English. There must be an equivalent for languages continuously spoken over
time.

~~~
maze-le
Languages change -- sometimes dramatically -- over the course of centuries.
English wasn't even a thing until the 1100s or so (Middle English). It would
be very hard to exchange thoughts and ideas with the people of this time --
not only because of the different cultural and technological contexts but also
because of its pronunciation and phonology.

Its predecessor: Anglo Saxon is even more distant from it. Try to read the
passages here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#Beowulf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#Beowulf)

Latin (as an artificially conserved language) has not changed that much since
Roman times, but it isn't a language that is actively used in everyday life --
so you cannot claim it is: "continuously spoken over time".

Hebrew and Arabic could be interesting cases -- maybe someone more
knowledgeable than me can chime in on these... But I assume ancient Hebrew and
Arabic are also not mutually intelligible with the corresponding languages
today.

~~~
jbay
Even for Latin, apparently Ecclesiastical (Church) Latin, which is more
familiar to most people today, differs in pronunciation from Classical Latin.
For example, Ecclesiastical Latin uses a soft 'c', where the ancient Romans
would have used a hard 'c' \-- Cicero's name would have been pronounced like
"keekero" in his day, whereas most people now think of him as "Sissero".
Although the Roman empire was large and diverse enough that Latin probably had
quite a variety of dialects and maybe Ecclesiastical Latin was one of them.

Hebrew is an unusual case because, like Latin, it was mostly a dead language
that for centuries only continued to be used in religious and a few other
contexts. It was revived in the 19th century. Because of its long period of
cryostasis the parts that were preserved probably haven't changed that much,
although necessarily it's expanded greatly into a living language.

------
reallydontask
I like how Rome is listed as 753 BCE.

A lot of guess work on these dates

~~~
smitty1e
Best estimate, until the next archaeological discovery.

As long as we don't equate estimates with facts, we're good.

~~~
machello13
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.

~~~
corebit
Yes but when did it become a "city" versus just a caveman camp?

~~~
netsharc
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?

~~~
owenversteeg
In the example of a handful: the average "handful" is around 100-50mL. Say we
define a "handful" as 50mL +/\- 1 order of magnitude. On the high end, you
have Andre the Giant, who could easily fit a 12 oz beer in his hand no problem
(354 mL.) On the low end, you have children; even kids with small hands can
hold 5mL.

\---

Sure, there's some ambiguity, and of course there's not a hard number on it.
But that doesn't mean you can't tell if something is a city. Nobody would
argue that, for example, NYC isn't a city, or London or Amsterdam or whatnot.

As the world population grew, so did the definition of "city". 12,000 years
ago, there were somewhere around ten million people in the entire world, so a
definition of somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.1% of the world population
(10,000 people) for a city seems reasonable, plus or minus one order of
magnitude. I'll call it Owen's Law :) That holds for today: 0.1% of the world
population is 7.8 million, plus or minus 1 order of magnitude - I'd say that's
a fine definition for a city. In any case, it works very well today: at the
large end you have cities like Chongqing with 30+ million in the municipality,
and at the small end you have cities like Rotterdam with around 700k people in
the city proper.

To check if my rule of thumb worked: At the year 1, assuming 200 million
people in the world, that's setting a city around 200,000 people, plus or
minus 1 order of magnitude. The largest city in the world was Rome, between
1MM-400k people; all the top 10 largest cities fell within the rule.

\- It holds at the year 1000 (world pop. ~300MM, largest city Córdoba with
400k, smaller cities like Nimes with 56k.)

\- It holds at the year 1500 (world pop. 500MM, largest city Constantinople
250k, smaller cities like Palermo, Florence, Madrid, Moscow with ~70k.)

\- It holds at 1800 (world pop. ~1 billion, largest cities Vienna and London
~1MM, smaller cities like Berlin, Lyon, Venice 150k.)

\- It holds at 1900 (world pop. 1.6 billion, largest city London 5.5MM,
smaller cities Naples, Madrid, Amsterdam ~500k.)

------
aluminussoma
With the world explored and mapped, it is hard to fathom new cities being
built. Nevertheless, that will certainly happen in the future.

What will the catalyst be? Will it be nuclear war, which devastates and
contaminates an area for decades? Will it be disease that makes existing urban
areas less desirable to live in? Will it be economic opportunity, as we
discover new uses for land or a new way to use land? Space Travel?

I see a small parallel to startups: it is easy but dangerous to say "there are
no new ideas in that industry". Yet often some of the primary companies are
those that survived the early "land grab" of customers.

------
waylandsmithers
"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.

------
awiesenhofer
Wow, this is a great example of a rather terrible wikipedia page. Grouping it
by continent. No mention of the Middle East at all (Erbil anyone?). Oceania is
just a list of every major city in AUS/NZ, even listing 1913s Canberra while
omitting basically every other country in the region.

Not trying to diminish the work that went into it so far, but it is a great
example to always keep in mind how wikipedia works, how its content is built
and to never trust it as a source in itself.

~~~
EdwardDiego
And on the NZ side, it calls Bluff a city. It's a town (whose population
peaked at 3000) near Invercargill, which is itself, only just a city.

[https://www.worldhistoryofbluff.org.nz](https://www.worldhistoryofbluff.org.nz)

------
nanna
In the UK there's a common derision of tourists from (sorry but) the USA who
find themselves dumbfounded by the age of some rickety old pub from the
eighteenth century they've tracked down. This Wikipedia page emphasises how
little this old rock's got on the rest of the world.

Apart from Australasia.

Though seriously, I appreciate that Oceana's indigenous peoples are highly
nomadic, but is it really the case that there's no continuous settlement there
until European colonisation?

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
Yes I think the idea here is that the distances over seas to reach islands
took many many years until Polynesians delevoped the necessary skills and tech
were able to navigate them and settle the lands. I don’t think any
archeological evdince have been found otherwise.

------
HorkHunter
So, Lisbon is older than Rome, TIL!

~~~
galfarragem
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](https://www.lisbonlux.com/lisbon/nucleo-arqueologico.html)

~~~
swimfar
I found it to be a really interesting tour. I think it's free, as well.

------
jedberg
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.

------
zelphirkalt
This list seems quite incomplete. Check for example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu#Early_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu#Early_history)

There are probably more cities like this.

------
JoeAltmaier
Jesus folks are getting owly. Yesterday I mentioned here, that in addition to
inhabited cities there are very old nomadic populations, some very much older
that the oldest continuously inhabited city.

And got totally smashed by bad feedback, and eventually flagged (?!) for
saying this.

What gives? HN is normally such a tolerant place, full of curious people. Is
this topic so emotionally toxic that no alternate dialog is tolerated? I'm
honestly confused.

------
zaarn
I live in one of the cities mentioned on this page (Augsburg), I think it's
pointless to argue of how much is still around from the old ages and if people
respect it. The age of a city builds a certain character on a city, the quirks
and things that go on for some reason that has been forgotten since before
America was discovered.

Puts some perspective into "for an american, 200 years is a long time",
doesn't it?

------
minkeymaniac
If you ever go to Pula, make sure to visit the Arena
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pula_Arena](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pula_Arena))
and pass by Zlatna Vrata
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_the_Sergii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_the_Sergii))
both are ~2000 year old

------
cdubzzz
Also interesting (from the "See also" section) -- List of oldest known
surviving buildings[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_known_surviving...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_known_surviving_buildings)

------
openlowcode
Stupid comment maybe but I wished there was a global list.

I was surprised though at the limited number of sites inhabited continuously
since earlier than 2000BCE. I would believe that good natural sites (natural
harbors with a river) would have been continuously inhabited since neolithic.

------
smaili
TIL San Diego is the oldest city on the West Coast and the birthplace of
California!

------
Jagat
Interesting that Marakkesh is listed as 1070CE. Marakkesh is where the
'gladiator' Maximus fights, and moves to Rome from, in the movie. That's
during the reign of Commodus, which places it at around 190CE.

------
glitchc
This list seems hardly complete. There’s no mention of Central Asia for
instance.

~~~
andybak
I spotted Afghanistan which is pretty damn Central Asian.

------
zwieback
Cholula FTW! Oldest still inhabited city in the Americas and best hot sauce.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
We have a tendency to group all ancient cities together in our minds, but the
difference between Luxor/Thebes(3200BC) and Rome(753BC) is about the same as
between Rome and New York City(1624).

------
seddin
I'm incredibly impressed to find that Tangier is ther third oldest continously
inhabited city in Africa, I go through it almost every year to visit Morocco,
such a beautiful country.

------
Zaheer
This map is a nice visualization of the oldest cities:
[https://i.redd.it/qc23w3nl85u31.png](https://i.redd.it/qc23w3nl85u31.png)

------
new_mexican
Aztec and Taos in New Mexico have been inhabited since 1000ad. They are
considered cities, despite how small they are

------
jasonswett
What about London?

~~~
egypturnash
Wikipedia’s date for that is 43 AD, there’s a long list of European cities
that stops a lifetime before that.

~~~
m-i-l
> _" Wikipedia’s date for that is 43 AD"_

There was a story a couple of weeks ago[0] about pottery dating from around
3600BCE being found at a site in Shoreditch (which was being excavated for the
new Amazon HQ), suggesting London may have been inhabited considerably longer
than previously thought.

[0] [https://www.mola.org.uk/blog/largest-group-early-
neolithic-p...](https://www.mola.org.uk/blog/largest-group-early-neolithic-
pottery-ever-found-london-dated-using-new-technique) &
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2178-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2178-z)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
That wouldn't be "London city" that would be "a village which the latter
settlement of London expanded to encompass"; which is significantly different.
Not longest inhabited areas, but continuously inhabited city.

------
d_silin
I happened to be born in one of those cities. AMA :)

~~~
egypturnash
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.

~~~
InitialLastName
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.

~~~
iso1631
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)

------
bytematic
These cities are beautiful open air museums

------
mgarfias
missing taos nm

------
farhadhf
The list doesn't seem to be complete, Shiraz has been inhibited since 2000BC
and it's not listed on the page.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Shiraz](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Shiraz)

