Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

To the best of my knowledge (sorry, this is not my speciality), Vukovar has not been continuously inhabited since Vučedol culture. See also Vukovar#Early_history. It should probably be removed from this page.

According to Liburnians#Settlements, the oldest continuously inhabited cities in Croatia would be Zadar and some smaller towns (Krk, Rab, Nin). I've also seen some discuussions about Pula and Stari_Grad,_Croatia, so these may be worth looking at. Stari_Grad,_Croatia has been founded 384 BC and promptly attacked by Liburnians from Zadar - quite a good reason to believe that Zadar is older...

A great naval battle was recorded a year after the establishment of Pharos colony by a Greek inscription in Pharos (384 – 383 BC) and by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (80 – 29 BC), initiated by conflicts between the Greek colonists and the indigenous Hvar islanders, the Liburnians, who asked their compatriots for support. 10,000 Liburnians sailed out from their capital Idassa (Zadar), led by the Iadasinoi (people of Zadar), and laid siege to Pharos.

I found some claims on the web that some recent archeological work has shown that Vinkovci has been settled since 6300 BC: Vinkovci su zapravo najstariji europski grad - zaista najstarije urbano naselje u kojem se u kontinuitetu živi više od 8300 godina, tvrdi prof. dr. sc. Aleksandar Durman, zagrebački arheolog koji radi na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu. U središtu toga najstarijeg europskog grada (Vinkovaca), na lokaciji koju arheolozi zovu „tell Tržnica", Durman je 1977., na mjestu današnjeg hotela, pronašao "nalaze starčevačke kulture, te ih datirao u 6300. g. pr. Kr."^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.164.126 (talk) 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The informations about naples are completely wrong, need update: Parthenope (VIII century), Neapolis (VI century). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.150.153 (talk) 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it fits in any of the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:17b6:1200:7d73:951b:9b20:cba2 (talk) 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is terribly formatted.

It shouldn't be divided by continent, but instead have absolute values.

Other articles, like world's tallest mountains, include this information and have the region as a separate field in the chart, so you can sort it by region, age, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.145.253.33 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not doing all that work. Richard75 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, too; I may update the article to follow that soon. Perhaps I'll do an overall list, and then the lists by region remain below?

Also, some of the cities in North and South America seems a bit unnecessary, as the 17th and 18th centuries have many entries, but that really wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd like to propose the inclusion of Erice, in western Sicily, in the List of oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.

Erice, known in antiquity as Eryx (Sicily), was a prominent Elymian settlement with confirmed occupation dating back to at least the 6th–5th century BCE, and evidence of earlier protohistoric habitation. It later became a major religious site under Carthaginian and Roman control, centered around the sanctuary of Venus Erycina.

Although some ancient sources (e.g. Tacitus) refer to a decline in population during the Roman period, recent archaeological and historical research confirms the site's continued occupation and cultural significance across antiquity and into the medieval era. Its urban layout, defensive structures, and religious role remained active despite demographic fluctuations.

Supporting academic sources:

1. Beatrice Lietz & Donata Zirone (2012), Erice. Fonti storiche e archeologiche, in La città e le città della Sicilia antica, edited by C. Ampolo, Pisa–Rome: Fabrizio Serra Editore, pp. 243–266.This study outlines Erice’s long-term habitation, its early Elymian origins, and its continued relevance under Roman rule, particularly as a symbolic and religious centre despite reduced population levels.
2. Salvatore De Vincenzo (2015), The Fortification Wall of Eryx: A New Definition of the Settlement's Construction Phases and Topographic Development in Light of Recent Excavations, in Analysis Archaeologica, 1, pp. 103–116. De Vincenzo provides archaeological evidence for continuous defensive occupation from the 5th century BCE through medieval times, noting reused Punic structures and urban stratification reflecting persistent settlement.

These scholarly sources support Erice's inclusion on the basis of continuous habitation from pre-Roman antiquity through successive cultural periods.

Let me know your thoughts — I’m happy to elaborate further if helpful.

Thanks! --- Kned Wiki (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you share a quote from either of these sources that explicitly supports the claim of continuous inhabitation? If yes, then we can certainly include Erice in the list. However, please take note of WP:SYNTHESIS. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Demetrios1993.

After reviewing additional sources in more detail over the past few days, I think you're right to flag the importance of clearly supported continuity, which Erice might lack. While the city shows strong evidence of occupation from at least the 6th–5th century BCE, the historical record becomes significantly more ambiguous during the Byzantine and Islamic periods (5th–11th centuries CE).

As Tusa (2017) notes, following the Roman era:

“The sanctuary of Venus Erycina likely fell out of use or was converted during the Christianisation of Sicily. During the Muslim conquest, which began in 827 CE, the site passed into Islamic control. However, the near-total absence of written records over the following centuries suggests that Erice may have been only sparsely inhabited or functioned primarily as a strategic outpost.”

(*Tusa, Matteo. Erice: Planning for Life. 2017. p. 76)

Similarly, Lietz & Zirone (2022) write:

“The archaeological and textual silence of the early medieval period makes it difficult to determine whether the settlement maintained an active civic life or simply survived as a fortified presence.”

(Lietz, Henriette; Zirone, Girolamo. Erice, Fonti storiche. Centro di Studi Erice, 2022, pp. 53–54)

Given this uncertainty, I agree it’s probably prudent to exclude Erice from the list of oldest continuously inhabited cities for now — at least until stronger evidence emerges to confirm unbroken urban or residential activity during those centuries.

Thanks again for engaging. I appreciate the guidance! Kned Wiki (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your straightforward and detailed input. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There are at least a few towns in Michoacán around Lake Pátzcuaro that have been continuously inhabited since before the Spanish presence in the Americas, and which are therefore older than some of the other Mexican cities listed. These include Pátzcuaro, Ihuatzio, and Tzintzuntzan. The latter were cities at the time they were capitals of the Purépecha Empire, and really only towns now, but Pátzcuaro at least is considered a city according to its Wikipedia page. 2806:264:4405:921F:2AEA:5089:50:5EFD (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you please share a quote from a reliable source, supporting the claims of continuous inhabitation for the settlements you have in mind? – Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gingerfruit:

• Shendi: The claim of continuous inhabitation since about 1000 BC failed verification. Again, Habtemichael (2007, pp. 225–226) makes no mention of Shendi. The cited quotes from the books by Salvatori & Usai (2008) and Chapman et al. (2010) – which were erroneously placed in the |pages= parameter and don't support the claim anyway – are nowhere to be found, which makes me assume this is your own commentary. The latter book is totally unrelated, discussing excavations in far-away Hungary; whereas the 358-page book by the former – citing no page number – only mentions Shendi on pages 150–151, without supporting the claim either. Also, stop adding ~ next to c.; it is redundant.
• Kerma: The claim of continuous inhabitation since about 3500 BC failed verification. Imperato (2008, pp. 192–193) makes no such claim; nor does Trigger (2000, pp. 212–213). Regarding the third inline citation to the book The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia (2020). First of all, Geoff Emberling, as well as the unmentioned Bruce Beyer Williams, are the editors; the name of Elizabeth Minor is nowhere in the book; the actual authors of the cited pages are Donatella Usai for page 103, and Matthieu Honegger for page 144, and neither say that Kerma has been inhabited continuously (as in without interruption) from 3500 BC until today (2025). I don't know if you had any other page number(s) in mind (I personally read pp. 143–145), but please, familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTHESIS, and try to understand the scope of this page. Lastly, in your last edit summary you said you are reinstating the item of "Kerma", but it wasn't removed originally; you also removed the {{request quotation}} tags without addressing the issues (diff).
• Kassala: The claim of continuous inhabitation since about 6000 BC is dubious, and I couldn't verify it. Furthermore, you tried to compare Kassala to the items of "Faiyum (as Shedet)" and "Luxor (as Waset, better known by its Greek name Thebes)". Besides Luxor lacking verifiability, which I will be tagging with {{citation needed}}, the citation supporting Faiyum says that it is inhabited since the 5th millennium BC, and that by the time of the Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2686 – c. 2181 BC) it had a settlement called Shedet, which has the been the site of the region's capital ever since. If we follow your own rationale, we would need to change the year of the item from c. 2181 BC to 5th millennium BC, but that would go against the scope of the list, which both the title and the introduction state; "this is a list of present-day cities by the time period over which they have been continuously inhabited as a city". Likewise, according to you, Kassala was founded in 1813 (actually I believe it is 1834), and assuming it has been continuously inhabited since 1813 (or 1834), that is the year we should mention; the Gash Group you included in your note is a culture, not a city or town, and even that is dated to c. 3000 – c. 1800 BC, not 6000 BC. Lastly, unless your intention is to make it as difficult as possible for the reader to verify your claims, begin citing precise page numbers.
• Khartoum: The claim of continuous inhabitation since about 7000 BC is dubious, and it failed verification. Also, again, stop citing sources without specifying the page number(s) that supposedly support your claims. Furthermore, Khartoum was established in the 19th century (sometime after 1821), not in 7000 BC. This is not a list of continuously inhabited regions, but a list of continuously inhabited cities. Furthermore, you cannot claim that there is "continuous regional habitation from Mesolithic sites through known Nubian, Christian, Islamic, and Mahdist institutions, concluding as modern Sudanese capital"; unless there is a quote that explicitly indicates continuous inhabitation (without interruption), you are violating WP:SYNTHESIS.
• Suakin: The quote attributed to Breen et al. (2011, p. 205) is nowhere to be found in the source (which is cited twice), and appears to be your own commentary. The only reason I am not removing the item is because page 205 includes a – different – quote that could be seen as supporting the claim of continuous inhabitation. However, it should be noted that Breen et al. (2011, p. 214) also state that in the 11th century Suakin was not a dense urban center, but rather a small coastal settlement.

Please take some time to better understand the scope of this stand-alone list, and the policy of WP:SYNTHESIS as well. I have full access to all of the cited sources, so if you think I misread something, please point me to the precise page number(s) in order for me to verify the claim(s). Note that this page was recently nominated for deletion (see AfD) because it has been a magnet of original research with additions similar to yours. This is also evident in the numerous unarchived and archived discussions in this talk page. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Should Miami count as one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities? There are archeological sites in what is now Miami including the Miami Circle.2600:382:2B23:35A1:1812:BDEF:589C:5C37 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@User:Remsense 2600:382:2B23:35A1:1812:BDEF:589C:5C37 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You yourself said you don't know this is the case, and that the cited article doesn't verify such a claim. Why are you also asking me, as if I can give you permission to cite a source for a claim the source doesn't make? Remsense 🌈 论 21:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The reason why I ask is there is archeological evidence that the area that is now Miami was settled millennia ago. However, it begs the question if it counts as CONTINUOUSLY inhabited. 2600:382:2B23:35A1:1812:BDEF:589C:5C37 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't cite sources for claims the sources don't make. It's as simple as that. Remsense 🌈 论 21:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I also feel in general this article needs a cleanup. 2600:382:2B23:35A1:1812:BDEF:589C:5C37 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Demetrios1993 2600:387:F:6C19:0:0:0:B (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a list of present-day cities by the time period over which they have been continuously inhabited as a city. Miami is a recent settlement, and I am not sure if there was a preceding urban settlement in the same location, going all the way back to c. 700 BC. Furthermore, the cited source claims that from roughly 500 BC to the mid-1700s, what is now Miami was inhabited by the Tequesta civilisation; however, Miami was incorporated in 1896, leaving us with a gap of more than a century in-between. Lastly, the reference that was used is not reliable; it is an article by a freelance journalist who is not a subject-matter expert. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Previously the article included

| [[Hangzhou]] (as ''Lin'an, Yuhang, Qiantang'') | [[Qin dynasty]] | {{CHN}} | data-sort-value="-200" | c. 200 BC | The city of Hangzhou was founded about 2,200 years ago during the Qin dynasty. |-

Yeah, that's nonsense. Central Hangzhou was part of Hangzhou Bay in the East China Sea until around the 1st century. If we're counting Qin's local county office in the western hills of the present municipality, there's no reason not to count the Neolithic Liangzhu site... except... y'know... it's an entirely different location that just happens to be under the jurisdiction of the same modern municipal government. Is that what we're really making a list of? Census districts with the earliest known archeological sites?

On the other hand, an actual official establishment of the actual present city happened in 587 (Timeline of Hangzhou) if we're including things that late from places like Japan and the United States. — LlywelynII 00:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Fes is older than Suakin. Why isn't it in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Muhib (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source supporting continuous inhabitation, and we will include Fes in the list. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The indigenous Australians have been severely misrepresented here, for Sydney Eora they have been referenced as exclusively hunter-gatherers which is incorrect, there is a mountain of evidence showing agricultural management across land and river systems MurphyRL (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Israel was restored alongside Palestine in this edit. Five days later, A3811 decided to violate NPOV by removing the mention of Palestine. The reasons given in their edit summary and on their talk page don't hold any water. M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree; the editor appears to be cherrypicking and misinterpreting what Status of Jerusalem says. In any case, there was no consensus for their change to begin with. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Why cherrypicking? Virtually all countries recognise Israel's claim of West Jerusalem. Is that not so?

However, the status of East Jerusalem is disputed, with many countries viewing it as 'disputed' or to be agreed upon by the parties. Please explain, guys, what you disagree with:

1. West Jerusalem is recognised as currently being part of the State of Israel.

2. East Jerusalem is not widely recognised as currently being part of a Palestinian state (which is not fully recognised itself). A3811 (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton@Demetrios1993 Please comment within the next couple of days if you have any objections. A3811 (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I do object your change in the page. The item in the list concerns Jerusalem as a whole. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It is currently listed as Jerusalem and Palestine, inferring at least part of the city is part of the State of Palestine - but that is not agreed upon, it's missing very important context, right? A3811 (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Also the current text - "Israel and Palestine" is WP:OR. Unless you bring an agreed source, which point of mine (1 or 2) do you disagree with? A3811 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why isn't there a lot of cities like Shiraz, rey ( raga ) , jiroft, Shahdad ,... ~2026-12544-60 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion of the almost modern Kathmandu and Lahore with a few of the ancient South Asian cities while countless others go unmentioned is a bit ridiculous, but maybe they're the oldest in their current country, so maybe that's fine, but then there are some like Toronto that make it look like people are just adding cities randomly. NNNNNNNN (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree the page is meaningless. It should almost be completely re-done!

As it is difficult to ascertain a city has been continuously inhabited, I'd propose to rename the page to List of oldest cities inhabited at present day. Or maybe just a List of oldest known cities (I didn't find such a list page!), perhaps with a column for Presently inhabited.

The main problem I see is there are way too many young cities listed here. Given the headline of the page, there should be some cutoff point, say, 1000CE or maybe even 0BCE. Having the whole list as one list, sortable by the known date of oldest settlement, would partially resolve the issue, however there should still be some sensible cutoff point.

Some parts of the world would not have old cities (inhabited today) at all on this page (despite having large cities today). That is interesting knowledge and perhaps reflects the fact those parts either didn't have cities or had cities which were destroyed by colonialists (there's much more history related to this I don't know of...). Their cities should be listed on a region-specific list instead of this page IMHO. Viileeditor (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)