Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed rules for inclusion in this list

Hello S. Ghai,

The concept of a "city" is something that it is probably safe to say has changed over time. Undoubtedly a city would minimally have to include a grouping of individuals living in close proximity, in permanent dwellings, in a grouping that was larger than a mere agricultural "village", most probably deriving some of its revenues from "trade or commerce", in addition to mere agriculture, and in ancient times, most probably surrounded by some sort of a defensive wall or moat. These are just some of my own personal thoughts on the matter, but I think they are quite reasonable. What would you think? Scott P. (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I've always considered public buildings a must but not sufficient. However, we go by what reliable sources say, so I don't see how we can make up our own definition. Definitely not dated to the earliest settlement however, as that won't have been a city by any definition unless it was deliberately built as one. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Scottperry:, @Dougweller: I mostly agree with Scott's assessment, except for the defensive wall/moat, since I haven't heard of the existence of such things before medieval times (i.e before 1000 CE). However, in principle, Doug is right in that we should go by what reliable sources say. The question now is, do reliable sources say anything about what constituted a city in the past? I'm asking since modern definitions of a city probably won't fit ancient settlements at all.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

((od)) They vary. Egypt and the Egyptians By Douglas J. Brewer, Emily Teeter says "Defined in this manner, a city is a polyfunctional settlement that has a dominant regional position among other settlements that perform fewer functions. In villages only one or two functions, primarily agriculture, might be performed. A town or city, on the other hand, serves a number of different roles, and different activities can be identified, ranging from market exchange to agriculture and government affairs. Towns are differentiated from cities because towns maintain a strong agricultural component by offering attractive conveniences to agriculturally based communities (villages) located within easy traveling distance; cities, although often maintaining an agricultural component, serve a greater variety of regional and national administrative functions than towns." Egypt is a tricky case for cities in fact, but no need to go into that here. And see [1] From my reading what they have in common is public places, a stratified society, and multiple functions. Çatalhöyük is often seen as a town or at best a proto-city despite its size due in part to its lack of public places (among other things, people seemed to worship in their homes). But what I meant is that we have a problem is sources don't say when a settlement became a city. I often see people adding material here that dates a city to the earliest signs of human habitation, which might have been just one family or a even a group of hunters who were only there seasonally. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are some things I think we can probably all agree upon:

1. Cities have to be more than merely agriculturally based.
2. They should be significant and dominant within their own region and time.
3. The further one goes back in time, and the sparser the general population, the less that would be required to achieve these things.

It seems to me that even though the distinction between towns and cities may be an important one, it will probably be much more difficult to reach a good consensus on that distinction.

No?

Scott P. (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Scottperry: Agree on all the points. @Dougweller: Read the link and agree with the functional definition part.

So, is this for the sake of theory only; or are we going to/should we go ahead and apply these rules for inclusion in this list?

If we're going to apply these rules, we'd probably require the entries to contain refs that verifiably show that the city was an important regional center at the time which is stated as its "continuously inhabited since" date.

And since we're on the topic, how would one verifiably say that the city was continuously inhabited? Records for existence of human settlements in each century (at least one ref for each century) since the "continuously inhabited since" date? And what if a source states that a city was raided and destroyed by an enemy in one year and remade the same year or the next year or five years later?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The further one goes back in time, the less certain things naturally become. Since, to the best of my knowledge, this list that we are composing here may be the first of its kind, with the level of thoroughness and wide-scope that we hope to employ here, I think it's fair to attempt to set up our own rules for inclusion, which should be as reasonable, clear cut, simple, easy to follow, and easy to verify as possible.

First there is the division between history, and prehistory. The existence of prehistoric cities can obviously only be verified using archaeological evidence, and the suppositions that must be made based on such archaeological evidence. Thus if the archaeological record of a prehistoric community seems to show the evidence of more than a mere village, and it is archaeologically documented as such, I think it should be reasonable to count it as a "city." If documented prehistoric archaeological evidence seems to show evidence of continuous habitation, and is documented as such, or at least there is no documentation of abandonment, and there is good reason to believe that the community was continuously occupied, such as regular archaeological evidence and later historical accounts of its continued existence, then I think it is safe to count it as a continuous occupation.

In historical periods, I think it is safe and reasonable to say that if an ancient written historical account claims that such and such a place was a "city", then we should probably count it as a "city" in this article, and generally not try to "second guess" the historical author. Also regarding continuous habitation in historical times, I would think that the same would be true as for prehistoric cities, namely that if for the same reasons it is reasonable to believe that the community has been continuously occupied (i.e. regular reports of its existence, no report of its abandonment), then we should count it as such. One more indicator in favor of a place having been continuously occupied would be the continuous use of the same name, or a slightly altered version of the same name over the millennia, as shown in historical records.

Just because a city is conquered or razed, does not necessarily mean it has been abandoned, but if it is reported as having been actually "abandoned", then I think that should obviously disqualify it for a listing as having been continuously inhabited.

So, to simplify, here are the rules for the prerequisites for inclusion in this list that I would like to propose:

1. A listed city must have documentation as to when that community was first recognized as more than a "village". (For prehistoric cities, such documentation would necessarily have to be purely archaeological.)
2. A listed city must have documentation of regular historical accounts (or archaeological evidence) of the continued existence of the city as a city through time, at least every few centuries.

Further thoughts?Scott P. (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(Unfortunately, after reviewing the "initial settlement dates" of many of the cities in the list, since I don't believe that the inclusion rules of this list ever made it clear that "initial settlement dates" should only begin when a community is believed to have first reached a "city" size, many of the "initial settlement dates" seem to be dated from the time of any kind of human settlement in the area at all was believed to have begun. I don't think that such earlier dates are in the spirit of this article and that once stricter guidelines have been agreed upon, such guidelines should afterwards be followed more closely, and inaccurate dates should be 'weeded out'.)Scott P. (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Scottperry: To be clear, you're proposing these two rules in addition to the three points above, or as sole criteria for inclusion (with the above three points not included in the official rules)?

I'd suggest that the following line be added to the first rule for clarity's sake:

The date for such a documentation will be treated as the Continuously Inhabited Since date for this article.

I agree that we can weed out inaccuracies from this list once we agree on a listing criteria.

Also, prehistory is generally defined as the period for which written records don't exist. What about records that do exist but only copies from later periods survive (case in point, Hindu epics Ramayana and Mahabharata).

We should probably be clear what we mean by "ancient written historical account". There is probably going to be a lot of stuff that is religious in nature, and the historical accuracy of much of which can be put to doubt. Apart from the epics mentioned above, The Bible's Old Testament and its equivalent in the Quran comes to mind. In essence, I believe that if we wholly ignore such texts, we might not be able to find many cities to include (or end up representing a lopsided view, which seems more likely), since not all such places (mentioned in ancient historical texts) would have been archaeologically excavated. So I think we should either count all major religious texts as being historical or all of them not historical. I prefer the former. The latter would inadvertently lead us into systemic bias. (Avoiding systemic bias is also why I would prefer treating all texts equally instead of a per-text basis consideration for historical accuracy.)

Note though that I'm unaware if there's a guideline there for this somewhere.

Also, we haven't considered if we're going to limit this list by time or by number of cities. 1000CE or 100 (50?) cities (whichever we bump into first) could be a start for this.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't generally consider religious texts as historical documents, and I would definitely oppose using them as I know we would end up with conflicts between them and the archaeological record. We use archaeology as our source for anything prehistorical. I think every country with ancient cities has archaeologists who have looked at them. I really doubt that not using them is going to make a considerable difference. A quick glance at the rest seems ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nombre de Dios, Colón Panama 1510

Nombre de Dios, Colón Panama 1510 Oldest European settlement on the mainlands of the Americas

I don't understand this entry. The entry two above it for Cumaná, Venezuela shows a 1501 date that is also on the mainland. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either of these was continuously inhabited since its earliest date. See Cumaná#History for instance. I've removed Cumaná, and I see several sources suggesting Nombre de Dios was also abandoned at times. Eg ""Colonial Panama: history and images" - Page 314 books.google.co.uk/books?id=shw-AQAAIAAJ

Pedro Martínez Cutillas - 2006 - ADVANTAGES OF PORTOBELO OVER NOMBRE DE DIOS By Benito Le6n y Canales (1851) C Tfn this same dossier there is a simple ... From then on, Nombre de Dios was dismantled and not resettled until well into the nineteenth century." Search for "nombre de Dios" Panama with either abandoned or resettled (abandoned|resettled works). Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2014 (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)

The whole world does not share your provincial definition of "city". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Belgrade, 6200 BC

Belgrade hosted neolithic cultures of Starčevo and Vinča, dating to 6200 BC and including some of the oldest examples of script in Europe (see Vinča symbols). It has been continuously occupied ever since.--24.135.64.29 (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a list of oldest areas. It wasn't a city in neolithic times. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2014 (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)

Hi, I don't really know where I'm supposed to contribute to the talk on this topic so I'm doing it here. To label certain cities as being in Palestine is indeed wrong, as no such country/state of Palestine currently exists. To do so would be no different from labelling cities as being in Rhodesia or Zaire (two countries, which like Palestine, no longer exist; although Palestine may yet come to exist once more in the future). While Hebron and Jericho and others should either be labeled as being in Israel (for lack of any other country existing in the area) or the West Bank, I find that the case with Jerusalem is different because, no matter how many peoples/nations/religions lay claim to Jerusalem, the fact is that East Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel and is therefore part of Israel (at least at the moment, even though it may not be the case in the future). Therefore, on a purely intellectual level, the word 'Palestine' should not exist in this article at present. Should the situation on the ground change, then the article should change to reflect those developments. However, this article should not be used to express the view by some that they have a claim to a city (whether it is legitimate or not) and therefore the right to edit the article in order to articulate that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.90.233 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as the international community is concerned, West Jerusalem is Israel and East are part of the occupied Palestinian Territories, which mean it is not accurate or logical to state that Jerusalem only lies in Israel and should be Israel/Palestine!Michael1408 17:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

Writing Palestine wherever is wrong! I understand writing Israel only for Jerusalem may not be accepted by some people, so it should say Israel / West Bank. Also for Jericho and Nablus it should say West Bank. Nitzpo (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it West bank? I don't get it, according to international community, the west bank is part of Palestine Michael1408 05:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

According to the international community (which is a subjective statement), "Palestine" is the region that is currently striving for independence from Israel. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant. What is relevant is the reality, that there is no officially recognized country named Palestine or the West Bank (the West Bank referring to the West Bank of Jordan). Therefore, the only proper thing to write is Israel (because if I try to send a letter from America,England, or wherever to the country Palestine or the West Bank, the letter will come back to me and ask to write a proper internationally recognized country. Eym174 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The heading of the column is "location" not "country". That's the first point to note. Secondly, international law regards these places as outside the boundaries of Israel, albeit occupied by Israel. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that they are outside Israel: see West Bank#Legal status. They are not located in Israel. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian Capital cities added

I came upon this list and have added to ‎Oceania: Perth, 1829; Melbourne, 1835; Adelaide, 1836; Darwin, Northern Territory, 1869; Canberra, 1913; + notes. They are Capital cities of their states, (Canberra is the countries Capital) and also the largest cities in them, according to List of cities in Australia by population#50 largest urban centres by population anyway.

I did this before looking for any 'selection criteria' on the talkpage, and see that there has been some discussion re such above. Most of them started as British colonies (some as Penal colonies) though Canberra, at least, was a planned city form the start. If they don't fit the list just revert me. Perhaps User:Dougweller could comment? --220 of ^Borg 05:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a limit on the number of cities from any one country to keep the list manageable, but others may disagree. I presume these cities have official dates of incorporation? Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency between an entry and its cited source

The city of Varanasi, in North India, is claimed to have been continuously inhabited since c. 1986 BC according to this article. Firstly, how can it be circa such a non-rounded-off figure as 1986? Secondly, the source which is cited is:

Vidula Jayaswal (2009). Ancient Varanasi: an archaeological perspective (excavations at Aktha). Aryan Books International. p. 205. ISBN 978-81-7305-355-9. Retrieved 31 October 2012. "[R]emains of Period I at Aktha which have been dated to circa twelfth/eleventh century BC is [sic] so far the earliest known archaeological horizon of Varanasi area."

The earliest date can thus be c. 1100 BC (the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth century BC). This is most probably the work of India boosters. Kindly correct this.

Thank you!

14.96.131.217 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Andrew Cabral

The date for Varanasi was previously “c. 1200–1100 BC”, but was changed in May by Adriano.93 in two edits, here and here. The reference wasn't changed, and there were no edit summaries. My own guess is that the editor wanted to add the claim “It's the oldest urban agglomeration in the world being inhabited by about 4000 years”, and so calculated the new date as 2014 - 4000 = -1986 = 1986 BCE, which is overly-simplistic for multiple reasons. I've changed it back.  Unician ∇  02:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Unician! Yes, that's rather sloppy work by Adriano.93. Forget the mathematics. I'm talking about the edit without a proper citation backing it up. Take care! 14.98.12.172 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Andrew

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

where are the cities of Bosnia ,Dalmatia in the List of cities by time of continuous habitationArchaeological evidence suggests that Tuzla was a rich Neolithic settlement. Being inhabited continuously for more than 6,000 years, Tuzla is one of the oldest European sustained settlements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.141.2 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

That identification is only conjecture, and has recently fallen out of favour with scholars, see Eblana. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2012 (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)

Halle/ Saale: Continuous settlement of the area since the late 6th millennium BC . Around 4,000 BC: Fortified hill settlement, 50 ha enclosed area, second largest menhir in Central Europe. Earliest evidence of industrial salt extraction in Germany. ; Regular and intensive salt trade up to the Oder and into northern Bohemia during the Bronze age . Stratospheric analysis shows urban-industrial character by 1,500 BC Intensive iron-age salt-working at and near today's city center archeologically evidenced (Figure 15). "Cemetery of rulers" around 450 AD . Settlement evidence for 7th-9th century AD . First recording in 806 AD, development from there well documented on the English and German Wikipedia pages on the city.

Quedlinburg : Continuous settlement of the area since the late 6th millennium BC . Mid-5th millennium BC circular enclosure/astronomical observatory (98m diameter), in use for at least a millennium Neolithic finds from 55 locations in and near the city . Castle hill continuously settled since at latest 2,000 BC Multiple bronze- and iron age finds in and around the city centre .

Schöningen : Possibly the best-researched site north of the Alps. Prominent example of 5th millennium BC Rössen culture , lent its name to the late 5th millennium "Schöningen group" . Early 6th millennium BC fortified settlement (1.7 ha). Mid-Neolithic: Evidence of industrial salt-making (brine-boiling), double outer trench traced over 400m length, 10m wide entrance gate. Archeological finds from all major chalcolithic and bronze-age horizons (Funnelbeaker, Globular Amphora, Bell Beaker, Unetice etc.), as well as from Iron Age. 1st century AD drying ovens. Early 1st millennium AD urns and body graves excavated at/near the market place . The Schöningen saltworks closed in 1970.

Wetzlar: Dürnsberg oppidum (90 ha, up to 2,000 inhabitants) from 8th century BC, 9 km north of today's city centre . La Tene period iron processing, and continuous settlement from at least the first century BC archeologically evidenced . Roman oolony (Waldgirmes Forum) at city border , Roman army camp in nearby Dorlar. "-lar" name indicates Celtic origin and establishment before 3rd century AD (also relevant for other cities listed here).

Goslar : -lar name indicates establishment before 300 AD. Archeological evidence of mining at the Rammelsberg since 1,000 BC .Archaeometalurgical evidence of Early Bronze Age export of Rammelsberg copper to Bohemia and Poland

Bonn: 1st century BC . Church construction around 650, referenced as "basilica" in 691/692 , strongly suggestive of continued inhabitation during the migration period.

Mainz: 1st century BC

Passau 2nd century BC

Würzburg: Urnfield culture (late 2nd/early 1st millennium BC) refuge castle . Archaeological finds demonstrate continuous settlement thereafter

Straubing : 2nd century BC. Late 2nd millennium BC fortified hilltop settlement in nearby Bogen on the opposite side of the Danube.

Ingolstadt / Manching : This is a definitory question. The Danube has several times changed course after flooding, resulting in a relocation of settlement cores. The Ingolstadt/Manching agglomeration, including southern Ingolstadt suburbs (Roman army camps & Germanic 4/6th century burgus) can be dated back to the 4th century BC, with interruptions of at maximum 50 years before and after the Roman conquest (though the area was in all likelihood never completely depopulated).

Duisburg : Iron-age settlements (from 7th century BC, textile production) fortifications and graveyards in and around the Kaiserberg (2km NE of city centre) . Roman bridge-head (market function, possibly fortified and including outposts on the Kaiserberg) from 1st century AD, settlement continuity evidenced

Heilbronn : One of the archaeologically richest regions in Germany, more than 4,000 sites attesting virtually continuous settlement since 10,000 years . The famous early Neolithic sites of Talheim and Großgartach lie just outside the current city limits. The causewayed enclosures of Heilbronn-Hetzenberg (22 ha) and Heilbronn-Klingenberg are regarded as prime examples of proto-urban settlement during the early 4th millennium BC . While late Neolithic and early Bronze-age finds from the city are sparse, the region was a centre of the Corded Ware culture (, p.99, note also Halle & Quedlinburg here and on p.66). Note that several sites have been identified that were too eroded to justify excavation works . A late Bronze Age set of moulds from Heilbronn-Neckargartach is considered the best-preserved example of bronze production technology in Germany . Iron age brine-boiling equipment has been found in 51 locations, several of which (plus two bronze-smelting ovens) lie in the current city centre. The salt may have been marketed in a 50-100 km radius. After the Roman conquest in the late 1st century AD, the city located an army camp, and a Roman bath. Various graveyards indicate settlement during the Alemannic period (260-486 AD). Archeological investigation indicates a 7th century Frankish royal palace at the current city center .

Soest : Another salt town. Early 4th millennium BC walled enclosure (35-40 ha) beneath the historic old town . Bronze-age finds in city center , continuous settling of a suburbium from the iron age to Merovingian times, and evidence of salt-making in the old town from at least 600 AD. indicate settlement continuity. 84.172.87.73 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Amesbury? (Or do we really want to restrict this article to "cities"?)

I've never heard of Amesbury being referred to as a "city". I don't think it qualifies, and probably should be removed from the europe section - pity because its length of continuous habitation is quite notable. In this above thread some outline criteria for inclusion was agreed. The word "city" seems to me the trickiest element to be tied down. Would it lead to less subjectivity if the article was moved to List of urban settlements by time of continuous habitation? I'm not entirely sure what is gained by limiting it to cities anyway. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking further "city" does imply a notability limitation, thereby keeping the list manageable. But it still is very subjective. Perhaps a better way of handling notability would be to have dual criteria: (A) any continuously occupied urban settlement settled before an agreed date (eg 1000 AD or 500 AD etc) which effectively establishes that its longevity had a global notability plus (B) the oldest continuously occupied urban settlement in any given modern country (if not already included in A), which would add in potentially later ones that had a regional notability because of its longevity. Just a thought. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Amesbury is not a city in UK terms. I'm even a bit concerned about what we mean by "continuous habitation". Note that this term is qualified in the source, which says "continually occupied for each millennium since". In other words, they found signs of occupation in each thousand year period for the last 10,000 years. Sorry, but I see no evidence that it there has been a settlement there for over 10,000 years. It's already in Oldest town in Britain by the way. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

America, North, New Amsterdam (New York), New York, New Netherlands, 1614 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam "The settlement, outside of Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island, in the New Netherland (1614–1664), was a provincial extension of the Dutch Republic as of 1624."

AthenaAtDelphi (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

I'd like to add Vinkovci, Croatia to the list. In Vinkovci we have archaeologically proven continuity of life for 8200/8300 (from 6200/6300 BC to today) years in the same place. From the early Neolithic Starčevo culture to today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinkovci Hvulic (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting that. The article simply says "The area around Vinkovci (German: Winkowitz, Hungarian: Vinkovce, Latin: Colonia Aurelia Cibalae) has been continually inhabited since the Neolithic period." So at least now, no. If it's added, we need to have a reliable source stating when the city was established, not when there were people living in the area. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

I request that [Sigtuna], Sweden is added to the list. It was founded in AD 980, 8 years before Skara, and is an historically significant town, with a great deal of records and mentions in sagas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigtuna

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

Done. Please sign your requests with your user name. -- Tri-l (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Continuously inhabitated as a city" section of Western Asia

That part is a quite messy. First of all, there are no citations for several cities included there as being "continuously inhabitated". Erbil is placed at the top, even though it's probably nneither continuously inhabitated nor the oldest city from the list. Jericho section states that Archaeological evidence indicates that the city was destroyed and abandoned several times (sometimes remaining uninhabited for hundreds of years at a time), with later rebuilding and expansion.. Also, several Asian countries are included in Europe, etc. Including "settlements" in the article instead of cities, like in the North America section, oh well that is strange too. The fact is, the article is not in an acceptable state at the moment. --92slim (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Settlements and villages

This article is in an unacceptable state. Villages and settlements figure in this list when the subject is clearly cities. Amesbury? With a population of less than 40,000 how was it included in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.138.140 (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reykjavík

Reykjavik was a small rural community until the late 18th century and even then it wasn't much more than a tiny village until Iceland started urbanizing in the 20th century. So although it has technically been continously inhabited since the 800's there should probably be a note clarifying that it wasn't really a city by any measure until very recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.145.9 (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. See[2]. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong continents

Since when have cities like Yerevan or Tbilisi been in Europe? Especially Armenia is an entirely Asian country. -89.66.180.185 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Europe is typically considered to be North of the Caucus Mountains and West of the Ural Mountains, and Armenia and Georgia are south of the Caucus.Waters.Justin (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the minimum population size and density for a community to be considered a city?

St. Augustine, Florida is listed with the year 1565 as the founding date, but by 1607 St. Augustine only had a population of 300 to 500.[3]. By the end of the colonial period, around 1821, Saint Augustine, Florida only had a population around 2,000 with about 300 homes.[4] Today Saint Agustine has a population of 13,679, according to the 2013 US census.[5] If St. Augustine was correctly added to the list then the minimum population size for this article should be around 300 to 500 for a community to be classified as a city and permitted on this article.Waters.Justin (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A necessary but not sufficient criterion is public buildings. Obviously not population, as I presume you are pointing out. Too late for more tonight. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying a city only needs continuous households and public buildings, and the population only needs to be large enough to sustain the households and public buildings? I agree with this definition. See St Davids a city in the UK of less than 2,000 but meets the above criteria. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I was thinking of prehistoric cities. St. Davids is only a city because it was made one by the Queen. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Split

I wonder if Split, Croatia could be added to the list? The settlement goes as far as 4th cetury BCE.

Also, I don't think Zagreb should be on the list. It became city under the name of Kaptol in 1242 and is not considered old city even by Croatian standards. The settlement which is dated 1st century AD is Šćitarjevo. It's a little village not even within administrative Zagreb borders, as it can be seen on the map.

DelmatST (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

|- | Baku | Azerbaijan | Absheron peninsula | The 1st century AD. | The first written evidence for Baku dates to the 1st century AD. |- |Pécs||Baranya||Hungary|| 2th century| |- |Verdun||Lotharingia||France|| 4th century||seat of the bishop of Verdun from the 4th century, but populated earlier. |- 84.0.68.13 (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oraibi, Arizona

should be on this list--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sites in Turkey near completely lacks

Adana ,Troia (Çanakkale), Bursa, Trabzon, Çorum Hattuşaş (The Capital of Hittites) etc. are all lacking. bilgin_adem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What part of continuous do people find so hard to understand? Let alone "reference"? Most Hittite sites were abandoned in the Iron Age. If you have an actual reference stating positively that some Hittite site was never abandoned and seamlessly remained inhabited throughout the Iron Age, classical antiquity and the medieval period, you are more than welcome to share it. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 10 September 2015 (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!

Excavating stone age remains does not estahlish continuity. Stone age stuff is everywhere. Evidence of continuity is much, much, much more difficult and thus rarer. Please cite your sources directly.

Amman is now included with the date "1878". What is a date like this doing on this page? Is this going to be a "list of every settlement, ever, that is known to have been inhabited for a couple of years"? Even this completely pointless entry is "referenced" to www.ammancity100.jo, i.e. some random website instead of a quotable reference. WP:TNT really seems to be the best option here. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Restore last good version?

Well, this has really been allowed to go to waste. The page used to have some minimal standards, such as actual references (as opposed to free-for-all googling), and evidence of actual continuity (as it is, we now have lots of crappy references that don't even establish continuity). I think it used to be ok until about 2013, so a deep revert may be the way to go here. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I won't object. It is a mess. Doug Weller (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

As long as i know in the list you can ad "Shkodër" as a city to , because it has been a city from 3 B.C until today. For as long as I know , if i'ts that true you can add it to the list of "List_of_cities_by_time_of_continuous_habitation" Thank you Marin Sheldija (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

why regions?

can someone explain to me how is it a good idea to split the list by regions? Krisztián Pintér (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I think that they should have a broader list which would include every (oldest) city of the world listed -- The oldest inhabited city would be at the top and the youngest at the bottom. I have thought of working on that, but I just didn't have the time to. User:Meganesia (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Howe would it be split? You'd still need a geographical area for each oldest city. Doug Weller (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

the point is NOT to split. we don't need area, you can look it up. but you can make it a column if you want Krisztián Pintér (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Krisztián Pintér are you saying don't even do it by country? Even now there's a problem with the list in that we have more than one city per country. How do you avoid listing every city in the world? Not that we could do that as we wouldn't have the sources. Doug Weller (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

like, oldest N cities in a single list, that's all? Krisztián Pintér (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That would actually be a different article, as many of the cities in this one, and indeed some regions and certainly some countries, wouldn't have any as old as the oldest 100 (probably the largest number feasible). And you'd need to keep the two consistent. Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

i'm calling for a change not to keep things as they are, but to change them to something different. the title offers a list of the oldest cities, which you do not get on this page, unless you go through all the sublists. (Krisztián Pintér (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

a smaller list

Much more useful would be a smaller list of simply the oldest cities in the world (it could also be divided by regions). A long and unwieldy list like this doesn't seem very useful. Y-barton (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicosia - example of the ambiguity around "continuously inhabited"

Does continuously inhabited mean it has been a city since x date, or that it may have dwindled to a village as Ledra, on the site of Nicosia, seems to have done? Doug Weller talk 15:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of oldest continuously inhabited cities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110806211554/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/world/europe/europes-oldest-city-is-found-394505.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/europes-oldest-city-is-found-394505.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611095615/http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/Greek_Naples.html to http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/Greek_Naples.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081224140801/http://lund.se:80/templates/Page____21316.aspx to http://www.lund.se/templates/Page____21316.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)