HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 9:22 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
I don't think the founding of New Amsterdam would represent a continuous line of habitation from where the Lenape villages of Manhattan Island left off. The history or New York as we know it really begins in 1624.

Likewise, many other cities of North America have the ruins of former indigenous settlements within their present-day borders (which in most cases were abandoned prior to the arrival of European settlers anyway; so not continuous). But those European colonial settlements were founded independently of whatever might have already existed in its surrounding area. This is a bit different from places like Mexico City or Cusco, where the process of colonization moreso took the form of the existing cities changing hands to new rulers - thus we can still say that today's Mexico City was founded as Tenochtitlan in 1325.
Most of the places that lacked habitation only did so because of illness shortly before Europeans actually physically arrived. As depopulated as they were it was never total and it was not very long maybe a few decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 9:24 PM
subterranean subterranean is online now
Registered Ugly
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
None of the old Mesopotamian cities survived - probably because of the shifting locations of the rivers, and how the early irrigation practices eventually left salt deposits which made it impossible to grow crops there.
Sounds like you and I took the same Anthro - Ancient Civilizations class.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 2:06 AM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698


A lot of cities in North America have been continuously inhabited for thousands of years.

Spanish Missions are a pretty good proxy for native American population centers in the southwest. They were built next to existing settlements as their only purpose was to convert the locals. These native American settlements were never abandoned or conquered. They were integrated into the Spanish Empire, then Mexico, then the US.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 4:19 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
A lot of cities in North America have been continuously inhabited for thousands of years.

Spanish Missions are a pretty good proxy for native American population centers in the southwest. They were built next to existing settlements as their only purpose was to convert the locals. These native American settlements were never abandoned or conquered. They were integrated into the Spanish Empire, then Mexico, then the US.

Fair point, I hadn't really considered the former Spanish-controlled parts of the US when I wrote that. But yes, Spanish settlements were much more commonly built upon existing pre-Colombian ones; versus the British & French who preferred to build their own towns & forts separate from those of the natives'.

The lasting effects of those competing forms of colonization can also be seen in other ways - the most visible today probably being the legacy of largely Mestizo populations of Central America versus the mostly European/generally single-race populations of North America.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 5:22 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Spanish Missions are a pretty good proxy for native American population centers in the southwest. They were built next to existing settlements as their only purpose was to convert the locals. These native American settlements were never abandoned or conquered. They were integrated into the Spanish Empire, then Mexico, then the US.
They were very nearly wiped out by disease the Europeans brought over. We're talking well over 90% of the population and millions of people dying.

I don't know what the history of every last settlement is but to say that Spain didn't conquer North American cities is just wrong revisionist history. They absolutely took over and raped Mexico City for example.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 6:15 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
I don't think the founding of New Amsterdam would represent a continuous line of habitation from where the Lenape villages of Manhattan Island left off. The history or New York as we know it really begins in 1624.

Likewise, many other cities of North America have the ruins of former indigenous settlements within their present-day borders (which in most cases were abandoned prior to the arrival of European settlers anyway; so not continuous). But those European colonial settlements were founded independently of whatever might have already existed in its surrounding area. This is a bit different from places like Mexico City or Cusco, where the process of colonization moreso took the form of the existing cities changing hands to new rulers - thus we can still say that today's Mexico City was founded as Tenochtitlan in 1325.
I think what you're getting at is genocide? The main difference between Tenochtitlan and Manhattan would be the complete erasure of indigenous, right? The island still retains the name given to it by the Lenape tribes that occupied it pre-colonial era, and it has been continuously inhabited. Broadway originated as a trail connecting the pre-colonial villages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 6:40 PM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
They were very nearly wiped out by disease the Europeans brought over. We're talking well over 90% of the population and millions of people dying.

I don't know what the history of every last settlement is but to say that Spain didn't conquer North American cities is just wrong revisionist history. They absolutely took over and raped Mexico City for example.
I meant "North America" as in US and Canada, not including Central America.
No doubt the Spanish were brutal in Central and South America, but I'm not aware of anything on that scale happening in North America in the southwest, nothing even close to it. Maybe they deliberately took a softer approach up north after the bloody Aztec conquest? Or maybe these natives were more chill compared to their hotheaded Aztec counterparts? For whatever reason the Spanish led with their missionaries up north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 7:02 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I think what you're getting at is genocide? The main difference between Tenochtitlan and Manhattan would be the complete erasure of indigenous, right? The island still retains the name given to it by the Lenape tribes that occupied it pre-colonial era, and it has been continuously inhabited. Broadway originated as a trail connecting the pre-colonial villages.

No, Mexico City was quite literally built on the ruins of the city the Spanish had just conquered. It's early inhabitants as well were a mix of Spaniards and Aztecs (obviously the latter being a largely subservient class). Tenochtitlan became Mexico City.

New Amsterdam was a brand new city built around a fort, populated by European settlers. That there were Lenape towns nearby (which I believe would have all been vacated upon the Dutch purchase of the island?) does not make them the precursor to New York City. Pretty well all of the populated regions of North America have been continually inhabited for tens of thousands of years, and having modern roads taking the route of indigenous trails & trading routes are not an uncommon feature in our cities. That however, is still a separate thing from when the actual present-day cities were founded.

It's no different from the cities of antiquity we're talking about here. The Damascus region for example had been inhabited for thousands of years before the city was founded sometime around 2000 BCE. But we consider the continuous timeline of the city as having began 4000-5000 years ago; not upon the arrival of agricultural settlements to its general vicinity 11,000 years ago.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 7:09 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
One of the main reasons why the Spanish tended to build on former Indigenous cities and the English didn't is the Spanish occupied their territory prior to or concurrently to the plagues which wiped out 90%+ of the native population. In contrast the British and other groups didn't really start settling eastern North America until well after the population collapse. Indeed, earlier attempts to settle North America (where Europeans had been fishing for generations) arguably largely failed because native populations were large enough to forcibly relocate any Europeans, and the land wasn't valuable enough for the Europeans to send a full-on occupying army.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 7:20 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I think what you're getting at is genocide? The main difference between Tenochtitlan and Manhattan would be the complete erasure of indigenous, right? The island still retains the name given to it by the Lenape tribes that occupied it pre-colonial era, and it has been continuously inhabited. Broadway originated as a trail connecting the pre-colonial villages.
New Amsterdam and Mexico City were new cities built by a new civilization on or near an earlier settlement they superseded. Phoenix has been continuously inhabited for about 2,000 years and its name literally describes a city born from the ruins of a former civilization but the city as we know it is only about 150 years old.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 7:44 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
New Amsterdam and Mexico City were new cities built by a new civilization on or near an earlier settlement they superseded. Phoenix has been continuously inhabited for about 2,000 years and its name literally describes a city born from the ruins of a former civilization but the city as we know it is only about 150 years old.
I agree. I'm struggling to justify that Tenochtitlan is the same thing as Mexico City if we don't say the same about many other places throughout North America. Any U.S. city that was founded pre-Revolutionary War is most likely located in a region that was already occupied by indigenous Americans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 8:09 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I agree. I'm struggling to justify that Tenochtitlan is the same thing as Mexico City if we don't say the same about many other places throughout North America. Any U.S. city that was founded pre-Revolutionary War is most likely located in a region that was already occupied by indigenous Americans.
Mexico City is a grey area in that the original inhabitants and their culture remained despite being conquered much like cities throughout the ME and Europe but unlike those, the conquerors destroyed the previous settlements and built a new city on their ruins. Where as others just took over and added their own influence over time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2019, 8:13 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I agree. I'm struggling to justify that Tenochtitlan is the same thing as Mexico City if we don't say the same about many other places throughout North America. Any U.S. city that was founded pre-Revolutionary War is most likely located in a region that was already occupied by indigenous Americans.

There's a continuity in the urban history between Tenochtitlan and Mexico City. The Spaniards first arrived in the Aztec city, and attempted to occupy and gain influence over it through the existing ruler. They then lay siege to it, conquered it, renamed it Mexico and started building their own buildings on the ruins of those that were destroyed. The street grid in the centre of the city was established by the Aztec, Catholic churches were built to replace temples, etc.

It's been continuously inhabited as a city, in the exact same location since 1325.

In the case of Manhattan, or other North American cities that were built on or near the sites of former indigenous settlements, they lack that same sense of continuity. The Iroquois towns of Teiaiagon and Ganatsekwyagon aren't what became Toronto, for example - nor was the French-founded Fort Rouillé. Today's Toronto was founded as the town of York, by the British. They were completely separate settlements who's long-abandoned sites were eventually swallowed up by Toronto's sprawl.
__________________

Last edited by MonkeyRonin; Nov 22, 2019 at 8:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2019, 3:26 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
the palatine hill in rome has probably been inhabited since the ice ages. 10,000 years ago you would have found neolithic huts with ppl making pottery and venus figurines

same for the acropolis in athens, and the cademiea in thebes

and yes, mexico city was the site of the capital of a large empire (albeit one that lacked true writing and the wheel, 5000 years after these had been invented inthe middle east), not a bunch of primitive huts like Manhattan pre-settlement or whereever else in North America.

Tenochtitlan



Manhattan

__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2019, 6:24 AM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
New Amsterdam and Mexico City were new cities built by a new civilization on or near an earlier settlement they superseded. Phoenix has been continuously inhabited for about 2,000 years and its name literally describes a city born from the ruins of a former civilization but the city as we know it is only about 150 years old.
Miami as well. Built on a former Native American settlement going back ~2000 years. Of course that settlement was like the Manhattan one below. Nothing but small huts populated by hunter/gatherers. They did leave behind permanent markers though: the "Miami Circle", numerous mounds, burial crypts...etc. There were also a few periods of being largely abandoned after the Spanish killed off the natives.
It does happen in Miami that highrise construction projects get held up do to archeological finds/digs..

If you ever stay at the Marriott Marquis in Downtown, you are on top of a large Indian burial ground that was built over
https://www.foxnews.com/story/indian...vered-in-miami
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2019, 1:32 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I agree. I'm struggling to justify that Tenochtitlan is the same thing as Mexico City if we don't say the same about many other places throughout North America. Any U.S. city that was founded pre-Revolutionary War is most likely located in a region that was already occupied by indigenous Americans.
Plymouth, MA. Europeans were greeted by Indians. Surely those Indians had settlements.

The Clovis Culture built significant structures all over America. Most of it was bulldozed down, cleared out for agriculture.

Imagine all of the settlements that we have no knowledge of and that are now submerged from rapid sea level rise from Global Warming thousands of years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2019, 3:38 PM
park123 park123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 148
I would count Mexico City as a continuation of Aztec Tenochtitlan. The ruling class changed completely, but a lot of the background culture remained.

Would you consider the current Alexandria in Egypt as dating only to the Arab Conquest? Or does Ancient Greek Alexandria flow into Arabic Alexandria? There too you had a huge change of religion and language, and a replacement of the ruling elite. Not quite as instantaneous as in Mexico City, but still.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2019, 4:30 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by park123 View Post
I would count Mexico City as a continuation of Aztec Tenochtitlan. The ruling class changed completely, but a lot of the background culture remained.
Mexico is an Indigenous-Spanish culture; the U.S. (and Canada) is a primarily UK-derived culture. The U.S. story is one that unfortunately casts aside pre-European settlement, so I would ascribe different timelines to cultural development. In Mexico, it definitely precedes colonization, and the vast majority of Mexicans have some degree of indigenous blood, and the food and cultural traditions, unlike in the U.S., all have indigenous antecedents.

I think in South America it's a little different, and somewhere between the U.S. and Mexico, depending on the level of indigenous background. Argentina, Chile and Uruguay would be most like U.S./Canada "clean slate" with "history" begun with European exploration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2019, 10:44 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Mexico is an Indigenous-Spanish culture; the U.S. (and Canada) is a primarily UK-derived culture. The U.S. story is one that unfortunately casts aside pre-European settlement (outside of large portions of the United States that was won or purchased from Mexico and Spain), so I would ascribe different timelines to cultural development. In Mexico, it definitely precedes colonization, and the vast majority of Mexicans have some degree of indigenous blood, and the food and cultural traditions, unlike in the U.S., all have indigenous antecedents.

I think in South America it's a little different, and somewhere between the U.S. and Mexico, depending on the level of indigenous background. Argentina, Chile and Uruguay would be most like U.S./Canada "clean slate" with "history" begun with European exploration.
I corrected that for you.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2019, 2:33 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
heraklion/Knossos , Greece is probably the oldest continously inhabited city in europe

100,000 people in 1700 BC

Quote:
In the Aceramic Neolithic, 7,000–6,000 BC, a hamlet of 25–50 persons existed at the location of the Central Court. They lived in wattle and daub huts, kept animals, grew crops, and, in the event of tragedy, buried their children under the floor. In such circumstances as they are still seen today, a hamlet consisted of several families, necessarily interrelated, practicing some form of exogamy, living in close quarters, with little or no privacy and a high degree of intimacy, spending most of their time in the outdoors, sheltering only for the night or in inclement weather, and to a large degree nomadic or semi-nomadic.

In the Early Neolithic (6,000–5,000 BC), a village of 200–600 persons occupied most of the area of the palace and the slopes to the north and west. They lived in one- or two-room square houses of mud-brick walls set on socles of stone, either field stone or recycled stone artifacts. The inner walls were lined with mud-plaster. The roofs were flat, composed of mud over branches. The residents dug hearths at various locations in the center of the main room. This village had an unusual feature: one house under the West Court contained eight rooms and covered 50 m2 (540 sq ft). The walls were at right angles. The door was centered. Large stones were used for support under points of greater stress. The fact that distinct sleeping cubicles for individuals was not the custom suggests storage units of some sort.

The settlement of the Middle Neolithic (5,000–4,000 BC), housed 500–1000 people in more substantial and presumably more family-private homes. Construction was the same, except the windows and doors were timbered, a fixed, raised hearth occupied the center of the main room, and pilasters and other raised features (cabinets, beds) occupied the perimeter. Under the palace was the Great House, a 100 m2 (1,100 sq ft) area stone house divided into five rooms with meter-thick walls suggesting a second story was present. The presence of the house, which is unlikely to have been a private residence like the others, suggests a communal or public use; i.e., it may have been the predecessor of a palace. In the Late or Final Neolithic (two different but overlapping classification systems, around 4,000–3,000 BC), the population increased dramatically.
7000 year old potttery

__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:18 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.