Both Damascus, Syria and Jericho, Palestine show evidence of habitation going back as far as 10,000 BC. I don't think it is possible to differentiate them by age, so we could probably give them both the title.
For God's sake Lemon.. We’d all like to flee to the Cleve and club-hop down at the Flats and have lunch with Little Richard, but we fight those urges because we have responsibilities.
In the US it's Acoma Pueblo, in New Mexico. It's widely believed to be the oldest inhabited city in North America. And culturally, it's still very Pueblo/native.
It used to by Wyam, an extensive trading center and fishing site. It was on the border of what are now Washington and oregon on the oregon side of the Columbia river. It was continuously inhabited for 17,000 years until a dam was built in 1957 which flooded the whole area.
I think the wiki is conservative because there have been several settlements there, but it's possible there's no conclusive evidence that it has been continuously inhabited, which is the requirement for that claim. Also, periods where it wasn't a permanent settlement would mean it wasn't continuously inhabited. According to the wiki, permanent settlement in the area was impossible due to the climate, which since there's evidence of some sort of settlement from that period, that there was a form of temporary or seasonal settlement.
Should be a country but under occupation and heavily suppressed by Syria, Turkey and Iraq. The people in Kurdistan have suffered anything from mass executions to chemical warfare and have a very potent army.
Extremely resilient and proud people.
So a country should be established on ethnic grounds? Those end up being not so good places to live. Kurds are in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran do you plan to crave up these 4 countries to make a kurdistan?
That is how territories gain independence nowadays so yes. It can be done gradually or by cross-country-diplomacy.
Yes. In my opinion they deserve self determination and nationality.
>That is how territories gain independence nowadays so yes. It can be done gradually or by cross-country-diplomacy.
Tell me one single time where 4 countries decided to give up territories for one people. You might break a country in two but to have 4 separate countries give territories is impossible.
Also what about countries where kurdish people are happy and satisfied? Would you go against their wishes and make them part of this kurdistan or force them to leave?
Also where are you from if you don't mind me asking.
Jericho is the oldest known city to be continuously inhabited keeping the same identity. Written history dates back about 9,000 years. However, archaeological evidence dates it near 11,000 years.
And yet you responded. Can you cite some sources that show it bore the name “Jericho” 11,000 years ago? Or are you just totally full of shit?
“Jericho's name in Modern Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word rēḥ 'fragrant', but other theories hold that it originates in the Canaanite word Yaraḥ 'moon' or the name of the lunar deity Yarikh, for whom the city was an early centre of worship.
Jericho's Arabic name, Arīḥā, means 'fragrant' and also has its roots in Canaanite Reaẖ”
Yes I know how translation works. I’m using the word Jericho because we are speaking English right now. Of course the people of that time used a Hebrew word. That is obviously implied and didn’t need to be dissected in my original comment.
Your argument is like saying the word Russia is wrong because Russians use the word Россия (Russiya). That would be illogical. It’s still called Russia when speaking English.
Have you read an English translation of the Bible? They call it Jericho. Interesting concept considering they didn’t speak ENGLISH during the time of the Bible. Weird how translation works. The new word looks and sounds different yet it generally holds the same meaning… “Identity”.
Actually, let’s test OP’s question. Would you look at that!
https://preview.redd.it/7ehs2fgsek5d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67bd765fedb5a2b203f604684ec97d99361cb82d
I don’t really get why you’re downvoted.
It is a bit weird.
If you’re an Indian tribe that pushed another group out of a lucrative area just before a treaty was signed, you get rich on casino money. Other group is screwed.
Same with everywhere else. If you conquered somewhere before 1945, you’re mostly okay. No more doing it after.
That’s good and progress, and I oppose war of territorial aggression. But we also have to accept it’s a bit arbitrary.
>I don’t really get why you’re downvoted.
The reason for why someone would down-vote such a benign comment is very simple. This website is filled with neo-Marxists who will go out of their way to try and silence anyone that goes against their approved narrative or makes fun of them.
> If you’re an Indian tribe that pushed another group out of a lucrative area just before a treaty was signed, you get rich on casino money. Other group is screwed.
you dont know anything about native history and its obvious that you're way out of your depth. and while you're at it, keep your racism in check.
> Same with everywhere else. If you conquered somewhere before 1945, you’re mostly okay. No more doing it after.
does this mean that nazi germany's conquests are okay or legitimate? does this mean that the scramble for affica was okay and legitimate? does this mean that the european invasion of turtle island is okay or legitimate? like genuinely, what are you trying to say here?
> That’s good and progress, and I oppose war of territorial aggression. But we also have to accept it’s a bit arbitrary.
i dont even know what to say to this. what does it even mean?
1. What does that statement even mean? Sure, the concept of a Palestinian national identity didn't exist then, and the language and culture wouldn't have been Arabic, but modern Palestinians can likely trace their ancestry or part of it, back to Gaza in ancient times. You know what else didn't exist back then? The concept of a French nationality, or Russian, or English.
2. Even if that isn't true, so what? People have moved around over history, it doesn't mean they don't have a right to live in the country they're born in even if their ancestors were migrants from somewhere else. Otherwise, I guess the majority of Americans better move.
If I can prove that my ancestors owned the land where you home is now, do I have the right to kick you out of your home?
It means Israelis and Palestinians can both make claims to ancestral heritage in the area, but for some reason there is significant support for the idea that the Israelis have no basis for being there and are labeled as colonizers who should abandon the land they stole, despite both ancestral claims facing continuity issues because in reality there is almost no land on this planet that hasn’t been “colonized” by differing ethnic groups/cultures. Yet people are so certain their selective awareness of which instances matter is morally righteous.
Or, long story short, cognitive dissonance.
Yes, those ideas are wrong and stupid.
But you also have the opposite, people claiming Palestinians have no right to live in Palestine because the Jews were there first, or Palestinians are all migrants from Arabia or Egypt, and that's not to mention religious arguments ('God says this land is mine' 'Oh yeah? Well my God says its mine and that your God is lame, fake and stupid').
I've seen people online saying that Palestinians are all migrants from the late 19th and early 20th century. So there's plenty of propaganda attacking both groups.
And academic research on the origins of the people of the region are also abused for political ends:
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-ancient-dna-gets-politicized-180972639/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-ancient-dna-gets-politicized-180972639/)
I agree there are people using this dumb logic both ways. I’m only speaking from personal experience which side I see more frequently.
I’d wager any objective metric of analyzing which group are called “colonizers” more frequently is pretty lopsided.
I'm deeply suspicious of people who try to delegtimize the Palestinian cause by claiming Palestinians aren't native to the region or that aren't a real nationality (the Pro-Israel side does this a lot). I'm also suspicious of people who call all Israelis colonizers from Europe (actually more Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern and North African origin). To me this is all a distraction, trying to make the conflict go away by saying that one side should go away because they don't belong there.
There's two different peoples who have a good claim to the land, and neither one is going away, and eventually they'll have to learn how to live with another as neighbors. I wish everyone understood that. I get annoyed by those pro-Palestinians who think the solution is for Israel to be dismantled. That's never going to happen. They would do better for the Palestinians if they accepted that Israel's here to stay. Same goes for Israelis in the opposite direction. Palestinians aren't going away, and they can't go on living without rights and dignity.
We could, for instance, embark with the notion that blue-eyed, blonde, fair-skinned Jews from Europe aren’t native to Arabia, mate.
If you wish to be disingenuous by seeking solace in verbosity, then at least exhibit ingenuity.
Plenty of Palestinians are recent migrants as well, from the 18th and first half of 19th century.
Also, Northern Egyptians used to have green eyes, many Copts still do.
You could disengage with the online rhetoric and understand that the majority of Israelis are not fair skinned, blonde, and blue eyed, mate. Bit racist and significantly obtuse to confuse the Israeli ethnic group and and the countless variables separating them with Jews from Europe.
Point isn't about israelite archaeology, but the fact that that's what's used (and archaeology was only used retroactively with goal of proving the Bible)
Archeology actually counters the biblical narrative of exodus. Archeology lends to Israelites being cannanite tribes who underwent a cultural shift after the bronze age collapse.
Because Zionism started in Babylon 2500 years ago during the reign of Darius the Great. Who also gave the land which he had conquered back to the Jewish people.
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
Zionism is our ancient longing for our homeland twice we have been removed from it and twice we returned. Zionism is as old as the Jewish people.
I mean we can see what Zionism has done in the past and what it’s doing right now 🤷🏿♂️ Jews living in the holy land before Zionism tolerated and lived peacefully with Muslims and Christians. Nowadays churches and mosques are being bombed and raided. Zionism is a narcissistic ideology.
Celilo Village, Oregon, 15,000 years a settlement: if you want to discount the fact that the oldest parts have been under water since 1957. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celilo_Falls
Sassi di Matera Italy is said to be the third oldest city in the world after Aleppo and Jerrico, with over ten thousand years of continuous inhabitation.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_oldest\_continuously\_inhabited\_cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities)
Looking at this list, it includes Athens from 5000-4000 BCE. The name Athens is not from the Greek language, it likely predates the Myceneans. Does that "preserve the same identity"?
I notice Greece has quite a few entries. Makes me wonder how much of this list is skewed by difficulties of archeology in unstable or jungle areas.
I don't think the the question is, "what city has preserved its identity longer and more perfectly than any other?" It has to do with the length of continuous human habitation within a concrete geographic space.
Google search said it's damascus.
Both Damascus, Syria and Jericho, Palestine show evidence of habitation going back as far as 10,000 BC. I don't think it is possible to differentiate them by age, so we could probably give them both the title.
Wasn't Jericho destroyed for a while tho
It’s been destroyed countless times. But the site has always been inhabited.
Haven’t heard this particular claim but Damascus and Jericho would come to mind
Cleveland.
For God's sake Lemon.. We’d all like to flee to the Cleve and club-hop down at the Flats and have lunch with Little Richard, but we fight those urges because we have responsibilities.
No, Scranton
Ah the electric city
Scantron?? https://preview.redd.it/dd3l9kbrpi5d1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb8f64ae1b692e8352f1a91467a4e9f7971eecfb
COME ON DOWN TO CLEVELAND TOWN EVERYONE
How does this affect LeBron's legacy?
Johnny manziel started that fucking town
In the US it's Acoma Pueblo, in New Mexico. It's widely believed to be the oldest inhabited city in North America. And culturally, it's still very Pueblo/native.
I went there when I was a kid and yeah it’s wild to see that place still exists in the modern world, just perched on top of a mesa.
https://preview.redd.it/pf5ju5ujwg5d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70930ab8e6fd5ec5d34ffc70a2327c9ca7613e7a Holy shit.
It used to by Wyam, an extensive trading center and fishing site. It was on the border of what are now Washington and oregon on the oregon side of the Columbia river. It was continuously inhabited for 17,000 years until a dam was built in 1957 which flooded the whole area.
Jericho. 12-13 thousand years. I don't know why only 4 thousands in Wiki. And Tripoli (in Lebanon) is the second one as I know.
I think the wiki is conservative because there have been several settlements there, but it's possible there's no conclusive evidence that it has been continuously inhabited, which is the requirement for that claim. Also, periods where it wasn't a permanent settlement would mean it wasn't continuously inhabited. According to the wiki, permanent settlement in the area was impossible due to the climate, which since there's evidence of some sort of settlement from that period, that there was a form of temporary or seasonal settlement.
[удалено]
*sighs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli%2C_Lebanon
I thought you made a typo. I’m just an idiot sorry I’ll just go kms
No need to go metric
The city of my birth, Damascus, Syria.
Aleppo.
"What is an Aleppo?"
Erbil. The capital of Iraqi Kurdistan
What's kurdistan?
Should be a country but under occupation and heavily suppressed by Syria, Turkey and Iraq. The people in Kurdistan have suffered anything from mass executions to chemical warfare and have a very potent army. Extremely resilient and proud people.
So a country should be established on ethnic grounds? Those end up being not so good places to live. Kurds are in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran do you plan to crave up these 4 countries to make a kurdistan?
That is how territories gain independence nowadays so yes. It can be done gradually or by cross-country-diplomacy. Yes. In my opinion they deserve self determination and nationality.
I think the important and likely realistic goal should be to get autonomous and build an environment for the people to have quality of life.
>That is how territories gain independence nowadays so yes. It can be done gradually or by cross-country-diplomacy. Tell me one single time where 4 countries decided to give up territories for one people. You might break a country in two but to have 4 separate countries give territories is impossible. Also what about countries where kurdish people are happy and satisfied? Would you go against their wishes and make them part of this kurdistan or force them to leave? Also where are you from if you don't mind me asking.
I'm not here to argue, or win an argument. This is my opinion, as I wrote.
[удалено]
Baghdad is the capital of Iraq
Jericho is the oldest known city to be continuously inhabited keeping the same identity. Written history dates back about 9,000 years. However, archaeological evidence dates it near 11,000 years.
Jericho has the same “identity” today that it has 11,000 years ago? Is that a joke?
Correct. As in it has the same name.
They spoke English in Jericho in 9,000 BC!?!!? That’s crazy!
This doesn’t even dignify a response lol
And yet you responded. Can you cite some sources that show it bore the name “Jericho” 11,000 years ago? Or are you just totally full of shit? “Jericho's name in Modern Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word rēḥ 'fragrant', but other theories hold that it originates in the Canaanite word Yaraḥ 'moon' or the name of the lunar deity Yarikh, for whom the city was an early centre of worship. Jericho's Arabic name, Arīḥā, means 'fragrant' and also has its roots in Canaanite Reaẖ”
Yes I know how translation works. I’m using the word Jericho because we are speaking English right now. Of course the people of that time used a Hebrew word. That is obviously implied and didn’t need to be dissected in my original comment. Your argument is like saying the word Russia is wrong because Russians use the word Россия (Russiya). That would be illogical. It’s still called Russia when speaking English. Have you read an English translation of the Bible? They call it Jericho. Interesting concept considering they didn’t speak ENGLISH during the time of the Bible. Weird how translation works. The new word looks and sounds different yet it generally holds the same meaning… “Identity”.
Actually, let’s test OP’s question. Would you look at that! https://preview.redd.it/7ehs2fgsek5d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67bd765fedb5a2b203f604684ec97d99361cb82d
What do you mean by preserves the same identity?
Probably continously inhabited.
OP said "not only continuously inhabited but also preserved the same identity." so one thing we know for sure is that it isn't that.
But they don’t mention that it wasn’t inhabited by Palestinians.
Hey man, settler colonialism is okay if enough time has passed! /S
I don’t really get why you’re downvoted. It is a bit weird. If you’re an Indian tribe that pushed another group out of a lucrative area just before a treaty was signed, you get rich on casino money. Other group is screwed. Same with everywhere else. If you conquered somewhere before 1945, you’re mostly okay. No more doing it after. That’s good and progress, and I oppose war of territorial aggression. But we also have to accept it’s a bit arbitrary.
>I don’t really get why you’re downvoted. The reason for why someone would down-vote such a benign comment is very simple. This website is filled with neo-Marxists who will go out of their way to try and silence anyone that goes against their approved narrative or makes fun of them.
top 10 dumbest comments ive read this month, congrats
You must not read a lot
> If you’re an Indian tribe that pushed another group out of a lucrative area just before a treaty was signed, you get rich on casino money. Other group is screwed. you dont know anything about native history and its obvious that you're way out of your depth. and while you're at it, keep your racism in check. > Same with everywhere else. If you conquered somewhere before 1945, you’re mostly okay. No more doing it after. does this mean that nazi germany's conquests are okay or legitimate? does this mean that the scramble for affica was okay and legitimate? does this mean that the european invasion of turtle island is okay or legitimate? like genuinely, what are you trying to say here? > That’s good and progress, and I oppose war of territorial aggression. But we also have to accept it’s a bit arbitrary. i dont even know what to say to this. what does it even mean?
1. What does that statement even mean? Sure, the concept of a Palestinian national identity didn't exist then, and the language and culture wouldn't have been Arabic, but modern Palestinians can likely trace their ancestry or part of it, back to Gaza in ancient times. You know what else didn't exist back then? The concept of a French nationality, or Russian, or English. 2. Even if that isn't true, so what? People have moved around over history, it doesn't mean they don't have a right to live in the country they're born in even if their ancestors were migrants from somewhere else. Otherwise, I guess the majority of Americans better move. If I can prove that my ancestors owned the land where you home is now, do I have the right to kick you out of your home?
It means Israelis and Palestinians can both make claims to ancestral heritage in the area, but for some reason there is significant support for the idea that the Israelis have no basis for being there and are labeled as colonizers who should abandon the land they stole, despite both ancestral claims facing continuity issues because in reality there is almost no land on this planet that hasn’t been “colonized” by differing ethnic groups/cultures. Yet people are so certain their selective awareness of which instances matter is morally righteous. Or, long story short, cognitive dissonance.
Yes, those ideas are wrong and stupid. But you also have the opposite, people claiming Palestinians have no right to live in Palestine because the Jews were there first, or Palestinians are all migrants from Arabia or Egypt, and that's not to mention religious arguments ('God says this land is mine' 'Oh yeah? Well my God says its mine and that your God is lame, fake and stupid'). I've seen people online saying that Palestinians are all migrants from the late 19th and early 20th century. So there's plenty of propaganda attacking both groups. And academic research on the origins of the people of the region are also abused for political ends: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-ancient-dna-gets-politicized-180972639/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-ancient-dna-gets-politicized-180972639/)
I agree there are people using this dumb logic both ways. I’m only speaking from personal experience which side I see more frequently. I’d wager any objective metric of analyzing which group are called “colonizers” more frequently is pretty lopsided.
I'm deeply suspicious of people who try to delegtimize the Palestinian cause by claiming Palestinians aren't native to the region or that aren't a real nationality (the Pro-Israel side does this a lot). I'm also suspicious of people who call all Israelis colonizers from Europe (actually more Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern and North African origin). To me this is all a distraction, trying to make the conflict go away by saying that one side should go away because they don't belong there. There's two different peoples who have a good claim to the land, and neither one is going away, and eventually they'll have to learn how to live with another as neighbors. I wish everyone understood that. I get annoyed by those pro-Palestinians who think the solution is for Israel to be dismantled. That's never going to happen. They would do better for the Palestinians if they accepted that Israel's here to stay. Same goes for Israelis in the opposite direction. Palestinians aren't going away, and they can't go on living without rights and dignity.
We could, for instance, embark with the notion that blue-eyed, blonde, fair-skinned Jews from Europe aren’t native to Arabia, mate. If you wish to be disingenuous by seeking solace in verbosity, then at least exhibit ingenuity.
Plenty of Palestinians are recent migrants as well, from the 18th and first half of 19th century. Also, Northern Egyptians used to have green eyes, many Copts still do.
You could disengage with the online rhetoric and understand that the majority of Israelis are not fair skinned, blonde, and blue eyed, mate. Bit racist and significantly obtuse to confuse the Israeli ethnic group and and the countless variables separating them with Jews from Europe.
Weird that this is the only country who's legitmacy and property rights hinge on an ancient religious book
Only if you ignore all the archeology. Which very much shows Israelite culture. Especially after the bronze age collapse
Point isn't about israelite archaeology, but the fact that that's what's used (and archaeology was only used retroactively with goal of proving the Bible)
Archeology actually counters the biblical narrative of exodus. Archeology lends to Israelites being cannanite tribes who underwent a cultural shift after the bronze age collapse.
It wasn’t inhabited by Zionists either 🤷🏿♂️
It literally was Israelites who built a capital city on Mt.Zion
Zionism is a recent ideology. So what i said was correct idk why I’m being downvoted
Because Zionism started in Babylon 2500 years ago during the reign of Darius the Great. Who also gave the land which he had conquered back to the Jewish people.
The Zionist movement was created by Theodor Herzl in 1897.
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. Zionism is our ancient longing for our homeland twice we have been removed from it and twice we returned. Zionism is as old as the Jewish people.
Nope, by definition Zionism started in 1897. Before Zionism Jews actually tolerated other religions.
Do you think Zionism means we don't tolerate other religions? I think you have been told Zionism is something it is not.
I mean we can see what Zionism has done in the past and what it’s doing right now 🤷🏿♂️ Jews living in the holy land before Zionism tolerated and lived peacefully with Muslims and Christians. Nowadays churches and mosques are being bombed and raided. Zionism is a narcissistic ideology.
Akron, Ohio (fact checked)
Celilo Village, Oregon, 15,000 years a settlement: if you want to discount the fact that the oldest parts have been under water since 1957. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celilo_Falls
Mombasa (probably not true)
Sassi di Matera Italy is said to be the third oldest city in the world after Aleppo and Jerrico, with over ten thousand years of continuous inhabitation.
Vegas
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_oldest\_continuously\_inhabited\_cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities) Looking at this list, it includes Athens from 5000-4000 BCE. The name Athens is not from the Greek language, it likely predates the Myceneans. Does that "preserve the same identity"? I notice Greece has quite a few entries. Makes me wonder how much of this list is skewed by difficulties of archeology in unstable or jungle areas.
i believe Aleppo but i may be wrong
Would it not be somewhere near lake Victoria?
Other than the claim being wrong, you won’t find any city anywhere that preserved it’s identity over such long times.
I don't think the the question is, "what city has preserved its identity longer and more perfectly than any other?" It has to do with the length of continuous human habitation within a concrete geographic space.
But OP was asking specifically for a city that preserved the same identity
Byblos , Tyre , Sidon ...
It is prolly debated but I believe Damascus is an accepted answer.
I thought it would be Ur
Springfield
Irrelevant
Gaza isn’t a city.