Talk:Hamoukar

Hamoukar not the oldest
Hamoukar is not the worlds' oldest city. Jericho still takes the cake, from what my double-checking suggests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Prehistoric_times

Catal Huyuk seems to be about neck-and-neck, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_Huyuk#Archaeological_history,

But it looks like Lepenski Vir definitely gets knocked down a rung or two... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepenski_Vir but it is premature to call Hamoukar the oldest in my opinion

Benjamin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clown in Black And Yellow (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 December 2005  (UTC)

No one (at least not the excavators) ever said that Hamoukar is "the oldest city"--check their news release. Archaeologically such a statement would be pointless--you never know what will turn up next. Incidentally, whether the Jericho should be considered a "city" is really subject to the definition of that term. In its earlierst phase it's a walled settlement of about 3 hectares with at least one tower (though the function of this tower is difficult to establish). Whether other elements of what we traditionally associate with cities were present--such as large administrative buildings, religious complexes, craft specialization, functionally distinct neighborhoods--is difficult to establish without further substantial excavations. Bilalama 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Relics
it is true that Islamic relics found in Hamoukar are ones never seen before? Islam is not THAT old...unless they are only hundreds of years old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.79.244 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What culture/language
If not Sumerian, what culture/language inhabited Hamoukar at the beginning? Badagnani 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Uruk Empire
I read a few years ago that some archaeologists were claiming that after the city of Hamoukar was destroyed by warfare its culture and architecture style changed dramatically to resemble that of the city of Uruk and that this cultural shift, plus the discovery of dozens of Uruk colonies across Southern Iraq and Western Iran, was being used as possible evidence, or even proof, by these experts, for the existence of a large Empire ruled over by the ancient city of Uruk. An Empire older than any other as yet discovered and one that flourished between 4000 and 3000 BC. Los Angeles Times article 2005 There's no mention of a 6,000 year old Uruk Empire in this Wikipedia article though. So, has the theory been completely debunked? Is the similarity in culture/architecture between post destruction Hamoukar and Uruk no more significant than that found across sites in the earlier Ubaid period, ie not proof of an Empire per se, just evidence of cultural exchange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.248.194 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dates
I believe Jericho is the oldest continously occupied settlememt but as to when it would be regarded a 'city' is debateable. Surely not pre domestication of grain and would need to be post agriculture? see Wikipedia defn of 'city'.

The dates in the entry for Hamoukar are odd though - how can it have been destroyed in 4500 BCE but only thought to be thriving since 4000 BCE. I believe that destruction date should be c. 3500 BCE. Wittym 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"4,500 B.C." for the destruction of Hamoukar was a later change that was (incorrectly) introduced by a user, who referred to an article in "La Republica" but mistook the date of the earliest attested settlement phase as the date of the city's destruction. "3,500 B.C." is indeed the correct date for the destruction level (check the University of Chicago press releases). Bilalama 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)