Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Carthage

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

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 | Andalusia, Spain | 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 | Andalusia, Spain | 8th century BC | founded as Phoenician Malaka.

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

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

References

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)

Turkey

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

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

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

| Gaziantep | Anatolia | Gaziantep, Turkey | 4000 BC |

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

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

References

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

• -  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)

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)

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)

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camulodunum notes that coins were issued from Camulodunum in 10BCE, and the Romans founded Colonia Victriciensis on the site after the conquest in 43CE, before any of the other cities in Britannia were founded, so it should be included.

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)

Tarragona

TO THE EDITOR: Tarragona (140000, 80Km, SW Barcelona, in Catalonia, Spain)was founded by romans in 219B.C. as "Tarraco", later capitol of Provincia Hispania Citerior. Before this, the city was a small iberian village called Kesse (from V B.C. century) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.79.216.18 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2012

Jericho's location should be referenced to the West Bank. Currently it lists Judea and Samaria, which is a term only used by the Israeli government. The West Bank would not only apply more broadly to the Wikipedia community but it would also be more accurate from a demographics standpoint - Jericho is predominately arab.

71.176.236.82 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The current names seem more appropriate when discussing Jerricho in a historic manner. Celestra (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2012

Please remove the unnecessary beginning of the sentence for Gaziantep "This is disputed,...". This fact might be disputed, but so are other facts about other cities in the list. It does not make grammatical sense either to start the sentence with this phrase then go into an argument with "although".

Eozer41 (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

link title

Istanbul is in 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) reopen this article, so we can place Istanbul in Europe The historic center of Istanbul are entirely in Europe, so lets put it where it belongs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.112.241 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2012 (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)

I agree with the above comments: (1) Istanbul is in Europe, not Asia (the Asian part is called Üsküdar/Scutari/Chrysopolis). (2) Istanbul has a history which now goes back to 6400 BC, making it the oldest city in Europe together with Athens. (3) Yerevan is in Asia, not Europe. (4) Only the oldest 10-20 cities in a geographical region should be listed; a second more extended list can be made. (5) The article is below the Wikipedia standards and needs major clean-up. (Anonymous comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.88.51.100 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mumbai - India needs to be here

^over 9000 is easily possible... there may be many more rural areas continuously inhabited, this is a list of cities check >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandivali approx age of artefacts is 7500 BC

also someone who can edit should make all the dates in one format — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.21.121 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Naples

There's an IP editor at Naples trying to push the POV of the city as having been founded in the 9th century as fact, which I am sure is an excessive claim to make, especially without heavy qualification. I would really appreciate additional assessments and help. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Palermo

The first settlement in Palermo was founded in 734 B.C. by Phoenicians and, since then, the city has always been inhabited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radrac (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Antigua, Guatemala

March 10, 1543 - as per your own article Antigua Guatemala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.241.239 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (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)

So why Derbent isn't suitable for the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.40.145 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Polotsk

Polotsk was founded in 862 A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbaranau (talk • contribs) 03:43, 19 July 2012 (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?)

some caves have been inhabited for 100000s of years, surprisingly many modern settlements are in the exact place where neolithic people settled. vienna to call an example that dates 15ka and more back. from that perspective, i think i know of a neolithic palermo, this list is pretty nuts:) 62.163.248.13 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the earliest date has to be the date it was identified as a city. It's virtually impossible to verify continuous settlement in areas where there were only a few families at most at one time. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2012

The city of Aarhus or Århus is not the oldeste city in scandinavia. It is a well known fact that the city of Ribe is the oldest city in Scandinavia and in Denmark. Ribe was traced to be from year 704-710. Quite precise based on archeologic findings. http://archaeology.about.com/od/rterms/g/ribe.htm Merstrand (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. [2] However, in the future please state your changes in an "X to Y" format, e.g., like this:

1. Remove "oldest city in Scandinavia." from Århus
2. Add "|[[Ribe]] || [[Jutland]] || [[Denmark]] || {{Hs|710 ! }} 704–710 <ref>{{cite web |url=http://archaeology.about.com/od/rterms/g/ribe.htm |title=About.com Archaeology |author=K. Kris Hirst |work=Ribe - What is Ribe |publisher=The About Group |accessdate=22 August 2012}}</ref>|| Oldest town in Denmark" to the table for Europe

This should be in addition to your reasoning (which was sufficient), rather than in lieu of. BigNate37_(T) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Egypt is in Africa, not in the Middle East

Medinat Al-Fayoum should be moved from the "Middle East" table into the "Africa" one, since it's in Egypt and Egypt is in Africa, not in the Middle East. It's scary to see so many ignorants editing content on Wikipedia! Fortunately, all the other old cities of Egypt are in the right table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.69.106 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a syntax error in the Gaziantep row of the first table; the date cell has migrated into the location cell and the delimiting pipe character is visible. Please add a line break after the link to [[Turkey]].

Amended. Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

look, the division into modern regions was misguided to begin with. It made sense to divide the Old World from the New World, because these were actually isolated. It is entirely pointless to divide the oldest settlement in "Europe" from those in the "Middle East", because before AD 800 or so there was no such distinction. Please merge it back the way it was, and consider that people who built the article actually knew what they were doing.

You will also be interested to know that Egypt was in Asia and not in Africa, in the definition of Asia in antiquity, which is the only time of interest here. You may as well classify the oldest settlements in "the British Empire", that would make about as much sense as using "Europe" or "Middle East" (i.e. it would be exactly the same type of useless anachronism). --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 4 December 2012 (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)

Jamestown was abandoned in 1699. It is just a historical site today. It definitely should be removed. Contributor tom (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bratislava

Bratislava - The first known permanent settlement of the area began with the Linear Pottery Culture, around 5000 BC in the Neolithic era.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25258-Oldest-European-cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirios (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Cities in Poland

Kalisz: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalisz Gniezno: http://polskiedzieje.pl/dzieje-miast-polskich/gniezno.html --Martina Moreau (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Standardize dates?

This list is difficult to use as some dates are listed in the format "# years ago" while others are listed as "#### BC" and still others are described as "Paleolithic", etc. The list would be easier to use if a standard date format was used, such as BC / AD for Christian style dates or BPE for before present era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.quay (talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A new city discovered in Bulgaria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20156681--131.251.253.65 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2013 (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)

As a professional archaeologist specializing in the Greek world, I have a serious problem with the part that says "recorded history begins in 1400 BC." The writing at that time would have been written in Linear B, which, if you look at John Chadwick's criticism of what he found in texts, barely provides anything that would qualify as "history" by most reasonable understandings of the word, and is minimally attested existing at Athens (if at all--I wrack my brain for finds of inscribed objects from that period, and can't think of any, although I may have missed some recent find announcement). The date offered for written history at Argos is a much better one for Athens, representing the dates of Greek history as we know it. In other words, "written history from 1400 BC" is total bunk, whether because of the misconception that any writing means history, or of the slim-to-nothing existence from Athens itself of writing in this period. Sorry to be wordy and a bit outside the general Wikipedia talk format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.200.73 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2013

2.50.180.140 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC) with regards to the oldest city of south asia please include srinagar capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir which is having the long history, dating back at least to the 3rd century BC. The city is said to have been founded by the kashmiri King Pravarasena II over 2,000 years ago, named it Parvasenpur

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 14 April 2013

Please change "Palestine" to "West Bank" in each occurrence. Nitzpo (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Baku, Tbilisi, Yerevan

Baku, Tbilisi, Yerevan are not geographically located in Europe. In fact, Armenia has no land in Europe, and Azerbaijan and Georgia have small regions that fall within Europe, but not these cities. Non credo (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca

Attested in the 2nd century AD according to the sources in the history section of this city: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cluj-Napoca It changed hands a lot but it was continuously inhabited. --188.26.144.95 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that in the article you linked to. In fact it seems to suggest it wasn't continuously occupied: "During the Migrations Period Napoca was overrun and destroyed.[citation needed] There are no references to urban settlement on the site for the better part of a millennium thereafter.[citation needed] Villages did spring up on the nearby countryside which displayed continuation in culture from the Roman period, likely populated by settlers that had abandoned the city.[11]" and "After the departure of the Romans to the southern banks of the Danube in the 3rd century, nothing is certain about the site's history as a settlement until the Hungarians (Magyars) arrived in Pannonia in the 9th Century. The modern city of Cluj-Napoca was founded by German settlers as Klausenburg in the 13th Century." DeCausa (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Cities in Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyongyang Pyongyang, city of ancient kingdom of Wiman Joseon, founded before BC 108.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul Seoul, current capital of South Korea, founded at BC 18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangju Kwangju, administrative center of one of the proto-three kingdoms of Korea, Baekje. founded BC 57.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyeongJu Kyeongju, capital of one of the proto-three kingdoms of Korea, Silla. founded BC 57. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.235.9.76 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding Meerut to the South Asia table

I believe Meerut should be added to the "Central and South Asia" section. The text would be along the following lines. I hope nobody has an objection to this.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(The following section is written in source code. See the source code to get 'cut and paste-able code' for the article's table.)

|- |Meerut |Maurya Empire |Uttar Pradesh, India | c. 300-200 BC | The city was an important center of Buddhism during the reign of Emperor Ashoka. Nearby settlements include Hastinapur, mentioned in the Mahabharata, which dates back to 2nd millenium BC, and Alamgirpur, where excavations have revealed remains of the Indus Valley civilization.

(End of source code section.)

It should produce something along the following lines:

Meerut

Maurya EmpireItalic text

Uttar Pradesh, India

c. 300-200 BC

The city was an important center of Buddhism during the reign of Emperor Ashoka. Nearby settlements include Hastinapur, mentioned in the Mahabharata, which dates back to 2nd millenium BC, and Alamgirpur, where excavations have revealed remains of the Indus Valley civilization.

Pinging everyone with >10 contributions to the article or this talkpage for comments.

@Dbachmann:, @Fipplet:, @Si42:, @Dougweller:, @Yangula:, @EditMonkey:, @Saxophonemn:, @Eleland:, @Dbuldakov:, @Nableezy:, @Michael1408:, @Freedom's Falcon 222:, @Da enlightened one:, @Rickyrab:, @Eleland:, @Scottperry:, @Utcursch:, @Mrand:. Please comment if there's any objection to this.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi S. Ghai,

Everything seemed to be in quite good order, so I've taken the liberty of adding Meerut to the South Asian table. I also took the liberty of slightly reformatting your "talk entry" above, so that it would display properly on this talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again S. Ghai,

I must apologize, but after a more careful review of your supporting documents, while there is indeed evidence that Buddhist temples were erected in the area of Meerut ca. 300 BC, I could find no evidence that Meerut had been continuously inhabited since that time, with a complete gap in its history from 300 BC to 1000 AD. Many areas of settlement in India have been abandoned and then resettled over the turbulent centuries of the ebb and flow of Indian history. In order to qualify for such a listing, I would think that you would have to provide such supporting documentation, at least showing its continued survival every 100 years or so. I've removed Meerut from this listing until you might be able to provide such documentation. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@Scottperry: Firstly, thanks for the response. Secondly, I don't have the slightest idea where I might find such supporting documentation as of now. I'll request this again as and when I find sources for the same.

Also, I'd like to be clear on what a city means for the purpose of this article. Are we talking about human settlements in the area in and surrounding a modern city which may have joined sometime in the past to form the urban center over time, in which case we would be considering when the earliest of those settlements was founded? Or are we considering when the core settlement (the one from which the modern city derives its name) was founded?

Regards.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Volterra

Why is Volterra missing from the list? The city is certainly as old as Rome, if not older.--Jidu Boite (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in there now. Scott P. (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)