Talk:List of oldest extant buildings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Uruk

No photograph is provided for the Temple at Uruk, and I've found no evidence that a building is truly extant at that location. Does it really belong in this list? 174.24.72.78 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it at your discretion if you feel it is not legitimate. Swampyank (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for oldest?

An IP has been adding structures, one with just tourist sites as sources, and they all and perhaps others probably need to be checked to see if they are claimed by reliable sources to be the oldest. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


older buildings

what with the Colosseum in Rome, the pyramids in Cairo and the parthenon in Athens ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danel2012 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the Indus Valley Civilization buildings in Harappa, Mahenjodaro etc.? They are from 3300–1300 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbansban (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Colosseu, pyramids and Parthenon are now in the article. There are no extant free-standing buildings from the Indus Valley Civilization, which is why there aren't any in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Kaaba

No love for the Kaaba? --85.154.12.183 (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This structure would seem to have been completely rebuilt several times, and in its present guise can't date from earlier than the 6th century AD. It is certainly therefore not likely to make an "oldest 100" list as discussed below. Ben MacDui 11:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to define the scope better

At the moment this is becoming a list of old buildings, which is probably not what was intended and is not a reasonable list. It should be a list of the oldest extant buildings in each country, ordered by continent, or something roughly similar. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it needs some clear criteria and it almost certainly suffers from some very significant omissions. The problem with a "list of the oldest extant buildings in each country" is that such a list would omit many of the world's oldest buildings, in e.g. Egypt where there will be many. Is it then a
  • "List of the oldest buildings in the world", where we would list say the 100 oldest.
  • "List of the oldest buildings by country" i.e. as you suggest, a list of the oldest extant buildings in each country, ordered by continent or similar.
  • A list that is a combination of both with defined criteria.
"Extant" probably needs defining as well. Oldest buildings in the United Kingdom states: "In order to qualify for the list a structure must:
  • be a recognisable building
  • either incorporate features of building work from the claimed date to at least 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) in height and/or be a listed building. Ben MacDui 11:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting suggestions. My worry, which I should have mentioned, is that by doing it by country and suggesting every country have an entry we end up with an unmanageable(due to problems about the number of countries, see[1] and unverifiable list. Thinking more about it as I type, I think that the oldest 100 buildings has at least some claim to be 'notable' and we could expect every building to have an article, but one by country probably doesn't. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed re "by country" and "Top 100"would be my preference too. For the time being there is plenty of scope for additions, although in due course this might become contentious. For example, Dover Castle seems to be one of the oldest buildings in England, but it is hard to see it making the oldest 100 worldwide and is likely to be bumped at some point. Furthermore, the list may become very skewed. I read at Egyptian pyramids that there are 138 or so built prior to 1650 BC.
There is also a nagging concern about the notability of the topic. It seems obvious that the entries in the list are notable - and that the list itself is thus "notable". However, if anyone else has attempted such a feat before it has yet to find its way into citations here. I have no such concern myself, but I did once fall foul of the deletion police in similar circumstances and a rather a lot of work was consigned to oblivion. Ben MacDui 13:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the pyramids are a problem. :-) Does WP:LSC help, at least in general? Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I see it states that "if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list", which is helpful in that it is explicit that the list should not exceed (say) 199 - and I think 100 is probably the limit. Part of the problem here may be that prior to the internet era coming up with a list of this magnitude might well have been extremely difficult. It is therefore difficult to predict what the outcome might be. Egypt and Scotland are relatively well-researched, but are likely to be numerous very old monuments not listed here.
I use Scotland as an example because I have a list of chambered cairns, of which there are about 100. Many will be ruinous and not reach the arbitrary 1.5 metres height restriction above, but given that these structures are typically dated no later than 2200 BC it is easy to guess that nothing younger than about this date is going to make a finalised and comprehensive list - for which a large amount of work is probably going to be necessary. There is also the problem of dating, which is often in the +/- 200 years range. Of course "lists by continent" and indeed "by country" can be also created in due course so that younger buildings can still have a place. For this list a short opening section listing the oldest by continent is probably appropriate. I wonder what the oldest structure on Antarctica is? Ben MacDui 15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put in the "by continent" idea. It's surprisingly difficult to find proper references. There's also scope for a well-defined "miscellaneous" section that might include e.g. the oldest iron framed structure, which is apparently Ditherington Flax Mill and the world's oldest hotel, Nisiyama Onsen Keiunkan. Ben MacDui 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I thinking a bit more about this I think it is going to be easiest to create a "by country" section with the aim of splitting it off when either it or the "by age" section gets too large. The latter should probably be restricted to a date - perhaps 1 BCE for now. I think the former is helpful in the interim as otherwise useful information is likely to get lost along the way. I'll have a go at this when time permits. Ben MacDui 19:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Iran

Someone added Cyrus's tomb recently, but I think this is just a pov thing as there are considerably older buildings. I'm not sure what is the oldest, but Chogha Zanbil still has quite a bit to it. Tepe Sialk is older but it isn't clear if it meets 'extant' in any way. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK - I'll check them out. The whole thing is very skewed - there must be numerous very old buildings in India, China, Eastern Europe etc. Ben MacDui 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitions and candidates

There are currently c. 35 entries in the "by age" section.

  • There are about 15 others that may qualify from Britain and environs that are 2000 BCE or older. There are probably (many?) more that currently lack articles.
  • There are likely to be a few more from France of a similar age.
  • There are c. 25 items on the List of Egyptian pyramids that qualify and likely more to find.
  • I have two or three more on the short list from elsewhere such as Ġgantija in Malta. There must be many more elsewhere but the western/English language bias of articles makes them hard to find.

That potentially takes us to about 80 on the main list.

There is also some definition issues. Is the Sphinx a building? It is clearly constructed, but at Building I read that this means "any human-made structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy". Unlike the others on the list, it does not fit this definition (as far as I know). Clearly we want to exclude 1.6m high statues, but perhaps its sheer scale makes it the exception from the general rule.

Reconstructions make cursory examinations tricky. This and this seem to be the same structure, the latter after some modern re-touching. This brings up another issue. Are dolmens like the one in the b&w photo "buildings". Maybe, but do the Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern dating from c. 3500 qualify? Apparently there are over 1000 of them! Perhaps the way round this is to assume that there are many buildings (only a few of which qualify) at one site.

Similarly I think Ba`alat Gebal just about qualifies per these images but the imaginatively entitled Large Stone Structure doesn't because it looks like a rambling ruined wall rather than a building, although I accept this is a little subjective.

Finally, although "by country" is barely started it may soon be time for it to become an independent article. With a bit of publicity I hope editors who are interested in particular countries, rather than listing pyramids and passage graves, would give it some attention - although to date no-one from Angleterre seems to have thought to add e.g. West Kennet Long Barrow to this or the UK list, even although on current evidence it may be one of the oldest buildings in the world.

Comment is welcome of course but I am just thinking aloud for future reference. Ben MacDui 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been working hard at this. I don't think we can split off a by country article. We can't have a list of 100 oldest buildings very easily, as that would have to be sourced to sources that said "This is one of the hundred oldest buildings in the world". And if we found a list from a reliable source, we couldn't use it as that would be copyvio. I'm not sure tombs/dolmen etc are buildings, and I'm sure that walls and the Sphinx are not. I think we can have an article on oldest buildings by country because it should be easier to find sources that make the claim. The article is about buildings rather than structures - maybe that helps us be clearer and exclude tombs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "main list" probably has to be entitled - "amongst the oldest buildings". There are a few websites with 10 oldest - not all of which are mirrors - but if there is a reliably sourced "oldest 100" I have yet to find it. Happy to move the Sphinx along - its actual age is clearly a matter of debate anyway. If by "tombs/dolmen etc" you mean the Table des Marchand type which are menhirs with supporting pillars but no definite sign of a proper enclosing wall, I am fine with that too, although we'd need to come up with some sort of clear definition. On the other hand I can't see any reason to exclude a building that has or had walls and a roof on the grounds that we assume it was a tomb of some kind. You might think that it would be easier to find sources for "oldest by country" although this isn't always the case. Ben MacDui 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sites not included

Those with + signs are probably candidates for "miscellaneous" if they fail to make the main list. Struck out those now included in the article. Ben MacDui 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No sites from biblical Israel included, of which there are many.

Sites for possible inclusion

I have been creating draft lists for inclusion in the article here in my own sandbox but there is no reason why they shouldn't be available for discussion here (or on a subpage) or for anyone to add suggestions even if they don't have the time to fully research them. One reason for doing this is that beyond Scotland and Egypt my knowledge of ancient sites is weak and having trawled through no few categories I have largely run out of subject matter outside of those two territories. It would amaze me if there were not many more that could be included. Ben MacDui 17:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Egypt

  • Luxor
  • Karnak
  • Osireion
  • Sphinx Temple at Giza

Britain and Ireland

Elsewhere

Greek pyramids

The reference is to a book by Bookstand Publishing,[3] - so self-published. Our article on these makes it clear that the older dates are contested and may be political. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Ben MacDui 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

N Caucasus

The entry, whilst bringing in an interesting new source of possible entries, raises various problems:

  • No specific site - although it is clear there are several contenders.
  • The use of "dolmen" in a way that is different to the idea of a simple structure made of a few large stones.
  • Possibly a quite large number of entries.
  • Perhaps not many easily available English language sources.
  • The Bronze Age N. Caucasus is a pretty specialised subject. Ben MacDui 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Locmariaquer

  1. Please see above photos.
  2. In my view if a structure has been rebuilt, its age is the date of rebuilding. It is certainly not standard practice in the UK to reconstruct Neolithic structures. I suspect some of the other structures on this list have similar issues and this needs to be resolved. Please discuss this rather than simply re-instating material without doing so.
  3. In a more general sense it would be very helpful if references were added with the publisher and retrieval date as needed per WP:MOS and in the standard form as used elsewhere in the article, rather than just bare urls. Ben MacDui 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe we should only count the height when excavated.
I also think we should not put cairns on the list and that that should be mentioned in the lead.
I agree with your point about references. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If you mean the height when excavated as opposed to the height when rebuilt, then I certainly agree.
Assuming you mean piles of stones as opposed to chambered cairns, I also agree. Ben MacDui 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Chambered cairns should be on the list, but not piles of stones to mark a point on a mountain, but Cairns which is a building should be on the list.86.52.95.24 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Extant building

Shouldn't this be List of the oldest extant buildings in the world? There are plenty of ruins of old buildings in the world.--Ninthabout (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think renaming is really necessary because if they're not extant, they're really not buildings anymore and shouldn't be on this list. Maybe a list of particular "ruins" or "former buildings" or "building sites" would be more appropriate for them. Swampyank (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Such a list would be unmanageable. But I do query why, for instance, Theopetra cave is listed. It's the remains of a wall. Fascinating, but just a wall. Maybe we need to tighten up the criteria again. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, maybe the criteria should be tightened and/or more spinoff lists should be created for those structures that don't seem appropriate for inclusion on this particular list. Swampyank (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right, a list of ruins is guaranteed to be too large. But if it's a list of earliest Neolithic ruins, or "earliest building sites", it should be easier to handle.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tidy up

Completed a major tidy up of the last six months activity. I am AGF on Listoghil, which looks to me as if it is almost entirely restored, but I can't find anything obvious that confirms this one way or the other. Further work needed on changes at Barnanez. Ben MacDui 08:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Other structures section

I propose we remove this. Why do we have a section which more or less states that it includes structures that don't belong in the article? Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If the only editors were you and I and a few esteemed colleagues I probably wouldn't disagree. In the circumstances I think the logic of retaining it is that it provides an up-front statement that the structure has been considered, but found wanting. Without it I suspect there would be rather more in the way of repeated 'remove - see talk page ad nauseam' edit summaries. Ben MacDui 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I take your point, but it looks a bit stupid for instance to even suggest that the Sphinx is a building. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not attached to it. Ben MacDui 12:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Another thought - relegating the 'others' to a 'Notes' section might kill two birds. Ben MacDui 12:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Jericho Walls were inhabited

Why are Jericho walls "other"? Perhaps someone missed the Jericho article's section of "inhabitation"? They sure seem to be "freestanding," tall enough, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Walls" do not meet the definition of "building". If you have reliable evidence that Jericho has structures that meet the criteria I'd be happy to look at it. Ben MacDui 09:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

why is this page so badly disorganized by dates?

would it not be suitable to show building by descending from oldest to youngest? Im sorry to say that i really cannot take this publish seriously without your dates matching up with UNESCO World Heritage Centre82.38.161.217 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)veda

8000 year old stone villages of Budj Bim

I don't think that Weibbe Hayes Stone Fort is the oldest building on the Australia continent. I believe the Aboriginal settlement of Budj Bim is much older. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1561665.htm http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/563892/Volume-3-Gunditjmara-Archaeological-Synthesis.pdf http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/news/docs/IAHereNow/p10.pdf --Collingwood26 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Budj Bim is much older - but do the 'buildings' qualify for the list. I had a quick look at the links but I don't see anything obvious about their extant height. Ben MacDui 18:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If a less opaque text is required, chapter 8 of 'Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley' (Memmott, 2007) also details the stone architecture of the Lake Condah region. Extant height of the walls + base structures ranges between 1 - 1.5 metres. However, these were near-continuously inhabited structures - rather than the single purpose, short term occupation of the Batavia fort. Some notable concerns - most of the settlements are 200-300 years old, so they interact with European contact, and officially they post-date the Batavia fort. But the flipside is that I'd also be concerned by the implied narrative that indigenous Australian's left no extant, built, habitable artifacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.145.234 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Removel of Mehrgarh

  • In order to qualify for the list a structure must be a recognisable building -

It is not, it's largely undergrund.

  • Incorporate features of building work from the claimed date to at least 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) in height -

Is does not meet the criteria.

  • Be largely complete or include building work to this height for most of its perimeter -

Again, it is not in any way complete. Mehrgarh is a ruin. 86.52.120.95 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ziggurats of Sumeria

This article completely doesn't mention Ziggurats, the first having been built 4000-3800 BCE. Lists & inserting photos into WP aren't really my thing, though, so I'll leave it to others to add. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did look at this but was not convinced any qualified. Nasiriyah is reconstructed, Aqar Quf does not seem intact, Etemenanki is apprently destroyed. Chogha Zanbil might - if you can find a good reference I'd be happy to add it. Ben MacDui 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Freestanding"

Why is this a useful criterion, so long as the building was at one point "freestanding"? It also brings up some strange questions about how to define "freestanding":

case study #1: The Sphinx is listed, but most of it was buried for thousands of years--the areas humans could "occupy" were (and perhaps even currently are) NOT within the "freestanding" part of it (as able to be "occupied" is needed to meet this article's other criteria), at that.

Some buildings could've survived earthquakes/floods/etc by being buried, so isn't this a bit of "cheating"? (unless we do it either by "years that it remained excavated (thus 'freestanding') and 'freestanding' in all other ways as well"--or else remove that as a standard.)

case study #2 (feel free to add more of your own "case studies" in your replies to this): . . . What about structures recently re-buried or submerged on purpose, e.g. 9000~9500 BCE Nevali Cori was originally built "freestanding" and (just like the Sphinx) survived without needing walls to be rebuilt until the 'winds of time' buried it in earth, but this was before it was ever toppled--just like many buildings that made it into this list needed to be excavated. Now it's submerged--which arguably subjects it to MORE erosion & lateral forces each year, compared to buildings exposed to the air

...so is it "freestanding" to be immersed in water--a fluid, as is air...not supported by solid earth nor objects? If so, maybe add Nevali Cori to the list...

And does it need to NEVER have been toppled (in which case the article should read "continuously extant," not only "extant") or is it ok if a 2000 BCE quake toppled it, then it got buried (neglected by locals in 1300 BCE & all eras, looking to steal a stone or 2, to add to one of their 1300 BCE/"new" homes), then archaeologists excavated & reconstructed it? (more "cheating"--esp since we can't know archaeologists reconstructed it exactly/correctly.)

Some buildings--Sphinx or Nevali Cori--are still erect (i.e. "extant") & continuously so... but some are resubmerged (likely temporarily, given how the Atlit Yam megalith (which won't meet this list for separate reasons) has survived submersion for NEARLY 10 MILLENNIA...which is ofc why the oldest in these lists are nearly 100% STONE structures ;-) and the Nevali Cori houses+temple (which meet this list's other criteria) was only re-submerged because Turks built a dam--a structure we all know usually lasts a few centuries, if that--to submerge Nevali Cori).

So standards like "freestanding" skew the reality of each "extant" (i.e. HARDY) building's hardiness because a structure excavated just 50 years ago might've been protected for 200 years -- or 20,000 years -- and (in addition to us not always knowing when it got buried/protected) will be placed in the same list with any buildings that were exposed for their entire lifetimes! Seems silly to demand they be ONLY "freestanding" TODAY then. ...It also seems all to easy to re-define "freestanding" based on a few Wikipedians' whims or biases. 72.48.252.105 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is that there is a difference between a "building" and a "ruin". If you want to start a "List of the oldest ruins in the world" you are free to do so. Ben MacDui 09:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh I don't think so, criteria for that would probably be impossible. And every oldest ruin in the world is almost certainly prehistoric. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not have another list of non-freestanding. I was surprised that I didn't see Petra until I read the criteria closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.37.34 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is OK to adhere to the definition of freestanding, but the problem is that the page title doesn't show this clearly. So some people consider this page as a representative of old buildings and ruins together. Therefore I suggest to reflect the "freestanding" concept in a clear form in the page title otherwise it would be misleading and practically a source for wrong information .Ehadavi (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned that "Some buildings could've survived earthquakes/floods/etc by being buried, so isn't this a bit of "cheating"? (unless we do it either by "years that it remained excavated (thus 'freestanding') and 'freestanding' in all other ways as well"--or else remove that as a standard.)". With the same logic we could challenge inclusion of some places that are in a geographical area with a much less fewer earthquake hazard! This could be considered a cheat with the same logic when we compare it to some buildings that had passed numerous earthquakes! this is the case for number 1 building in France which is an area with low earthquake hazard.[1] Ehadavi (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/france/gshap.php

Gobekli Tepe

what about Göbekli_Tepe??? i'm pretty shure it's the oldest building in the world LAUD (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Extant free-standing buildings only. It doesn't meet those criteria. We have evidence of even older (although smaller) buildings, but they aren't extand and free-standing either. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, when I visited it a few weeks ago all of the different structures so far excavated looked pretty extant and free standing to me. And at 12,000 years old it's pretty damn old...I think you'd need to have some rather strong reasons for excluding Göbekli Tepe, if your list is to have any usefulness at all.... Ginestre —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

well, there are at least 100 pyramids, and even more buildings in europe (made by ancient roman, greeks and etrurians) and in middle east (Babylon and so on). maybe the name of the page should be "List of some old and famous buildings" LAUD (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Gobekli tepe should definitely be included, as it meets all the required criteria. It is recognizable, free-standing building, and it's tall enough, at the current level of excavation (it was buried, but that isn't a good reason to exclude it, for example, Sechin Bajo is buried also). Dulemars (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The list "By age" is still a weak list...Totally nonsense...The Coliseum? There are at least 100 older buildings 10km around my house in Italy. There are literally thousands of older buildings in Italy...How can the Coliseum be in a "top 100" list of oldest buildings in the world by age? How? I think that we should rename the list as "list of old famous buildings" or delete it while listing something more accurate...At the current state imho is unacceptable! LAUD (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe is just a wall and a few standing stones. This much like to Stonehenge, only older. Why would this be included while dolmens are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.211.28 (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe is not just a wall and standing stones. It has several rooms (enclosures). It is nothing like the Stonehenge. Further, the engraved pillars (sculptures ?) with distinctive and unique artwork, puts it way ahead in possibly defining it as a building with a purpose (possibly temple?), unlike the Stonehenge while is just a pile of assembled stones (albeit massive ones).

American mounds

Not being argumentative, but why don't Native American mounds such as the one at Omulgee, Georgia, count? The mounds seem to meet the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:ADC5:561D:23F0:8319 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Caral Pyramids, Peru

Caral was inhabited between roughly 2600 BCE and 2000 BCE,[1] enclosing an area of more than 60 hectares.[2] Caral was described by its excavators as the oldest urban center in the Americas, a claim that was later challenged as other ancient sites were found nearby, such as Bandurria, Peru. Accommodating more than 3,000 inhabitants, it is the best studied and one of the largest Norte Chico sites known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.45.5 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Consistency of tables

The tables have contradictory information. For example, Göbekli Tepe is in the table listed by continent, but not by age. It's likely different editors have different views on eligibility, but can we at least make the tables consistent? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Cut-off point for table by age

I find it strange that the first table ends with the Colosseum at 70–80 AD. Why? As only the last two buildings have dates after 1 BC and there are no buildings close to 1 BC, it would be more logical to stop at 1 BC. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Eridu, Ebla, and other contributions of FPP

This list is about the oldest buildings in the world. Building in this case means "still standing". Eridu was an ancient city but today, it is an archeological site, meaning ruins, meaning not a free-standing structure. Same thing for Ebla. These additions don't feat the definition given in the introduction. So I intend to remove this content unless someone gives me a good reason not to... Eleventh1 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Stricter criteria

I think we really ought follow a stricter definition of "building," because the list that we have now is effectively inclusive of every brick that remains BCE. I could see why a tomb would be included, but why Mohenjo-Daro? The city was buried for three thousand years, and little more than the foundations remain today.

I would suggest that we use the following criteria:

  • Buildings listed should be complete enough that they could, theoretically, still be used for their original purposes.
  • We should not include buildings which have been lost and then rediscovered by modern archaeology.
  • We should not include buildings which have been extensively rebuilt and excavated, unless they have been continuously rebuilt and excavated throughout their existence.

Ideally, this would leave us with a list of buildings which may not have always been used, and may not have always been in a functional state, but have never really left human consciousness and have remained relatively intact throughout their existence. This would leave in many of the tombs and dolmens and the Pantheon, but eliminate the Colosseum and many of the archaeological sites.

If that seems a bit too strict, of course, we could just reorganize the list according to type of construction and state of ruin.theBOBbobato (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Should I add the Temples of Bel and Baalshamin?

Although they were destroyed by ISIS, they were almost 2,000 years old. Bel was built in 32 AD, while Baalshamin was built in 131 AD. Should I add the 2 temples?12.33.32.72 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So many buildings missing from the list, it's almost inexhaustable

So many off of the top of my head--Wangath in India was built in 137BC; Petra was already a thriving city by 312 BC and many of its most famous cave dwellings were carved out around this time; Mayadevi Temple in Nepal has some of its oldest structures dating back to 600BC; And in Greece alone, there are hundreds if not thousands of buildings that predate many on this list, such as the Temple of Hephaestus, which is older than the Parthenon and IMO, nicer looking too.

What is the criteria to this list? I think a notification should be placed that this list is by no means exhaustive and that there are many older buildings that haven't been included.

Stevo D (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems with article structure

I think that there should be just one table inclusive of all structures in the By age and other structures sections. The current criteria for inclusion are arbitrary, and listing loads of buildings in Europe first in a section called by Age just because they are in better condition than the ones in places like Egypt, Sumeria, Jericho etc does not really make much sense and it does create a false impression. Also the By continent and By country sections could be in their own article, as well as the Oldest of their type one, as they contain entries that are already in the by Age section. This needs clearing up. Gts-tg (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, these structures - with loads being listed in Europe are not in better condition - they have been extensively rebuilt in the last 50 years, some to the point of not looking like anything they were originally designed. Barnenez (at the top of the list) and other cairns in France, Scotland and England fit this category. Classifying these as buildings, while skipping entire city complexes such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa just because these are preserved in their natural state (as is the case in most of Asia, Africa, Mesoamerica, South American civilization centers) as opposed to being completely rebuilt in last few decades (as is the case in Europe) cannot be really be a criteria to define "what a building is".

Perhaps, this article should be organized in terms of civilizations (possibly following the listing from "cradle of civilization article), listing the oldest structure (originally designed and documented conclusively), irrespective of whether it exists today or not (as a ruin) and irrespective of whether it has been rebuilt to bring it back into "existence". Such a list can also conclusively include Gobekli Tepe as one of the oldest (if not the oldest) built structure ("or building"), given that the its architectural design, artwork and organization is far advanced compared to Barnenez, cairns of France, UK, Maltese temples, despite being 5000 years older. In fact, only the Mesopotamian and Sumerian city complexes (7000 years later) are comparable. Perhaps the use of masonry can also be a distinguishing factor? (to relegate structures that are just a pile of stones such as Barnenez to a separate list)

Curia Julia

You missed the still standing Curia Julia. --83.30.116.1 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of oldest buildings. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Monte d'Accoddi doesn't meet the requirements of this list for what constitutes a "building"

Not only does the blurb in the list say it's only a raised platform and describes it as "open-air", but the article for the actual structure explicitly states, quote, "No chambers or entrances to the mound have been found[.]" This means it's not enclosed and it doesn't have an entrance, which is the fourth and arguably most important criterion given in the list (I'm assuming, since it's the one used to explain why Göbekli Tepe isn't included in the list in the very first section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossark (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the Temple of Zeus in Cyrene Ben added?

It was built in the 6th century BC, but was rebuilt in the 2;d century AD. Should it be added?2605:6001:EB50:A900:E885:7863:4949:BF61 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of oldest buildings. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Keeladi and Kodumanal

According to the references, there are no extant building adhering to the criteria in the sites mentioned above. If there are no objections, I will remove these two sites. whatsinaname 15:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjputhenpurackal (talk • contribs)

Australia

I have changed the "building" on here that was said to be Australia's oldest. It isn't, a stone fort built in 1629 is more than 170 years older than "Old Government House".--Collingwood26 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What about [1]? I haven't been able to find a study on this site but have emailed the principle investigator and asked for a reference to it. Oldfart (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now found a specific scientific reference for the above stone structures in Australia: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564894.2015.1125971 Oldfart (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencealert.com/stone-houses-have-just-been-found-of-the-coast-of-australia-and-they-re-9-000-years-old

Why not Skara Brae

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

"Skara Brae is a stone-built Neolithic settlement, located on the Bay of Skaill on the west coast of Mainland, the largest island in the Orkney archipelago of Scotland. Consisting of eight clustered houses, it was occupied from roughly 3180 BC to about 2500 BC and is Europe's most complete Neolithic village" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.124.173 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Dolmens

The article is a bit confusing as to the criteria for inclusion. The lead says dolmens are excluded, but there are a lot of dolmens listed on the page. And if they are excluded, why are dolmens excluded but other similarly rudimentary stone structures, like Wiebbe Hayes Stone Fort, included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.223.3 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Germany and Sweden

Why is the roman Porta Nigra counted as Germany's oldest building and not one of the thousands surviving megalithic tombs as is the case for Denmark and the Netherlands? Sweden also has hundreds of megalithic tombs that are older than the King's Grave at Kivik. --Einsamer Schütze (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

two dates for same building

There are two entries for The King's Grave in Sweden. With different dates, 1400 BCE respectively 1000 BCE. I know the age is uncertain, but this should be corrected.92.34.204.111 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Roman Baths

Should we add the Roman Baths in Bath, England here?--2600:100C:A203:CDE6:9D14:5461:C87B:BA7B (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ideas for a new page

I know how new pages are made on Wikipedia, but I thought I'd run it past this talk page first, just to see what people think about it. I reckon we should make a "list of oldest known man-made structures,' which would include everything man-made, including all the rocky things that don't meet the definition of building. What do you guys think? Nate Hooper (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes please, came here wanting structures, not strictly buildings. I'm looking for an entry that would include any man-made structure, including a wall, tomb, cairn, any kind of monument, even a hearth. Maybe if there are too many of 1 type of item (cairns for example), the page could just list the oldest structure of that type. Lecky333 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

UK

How come the places in the UK, have Scotland/England bracketed beneath them? Other nations don't have this, there should be uniformity?Halbared (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not included

Why are Luxor Temple, Mortuary Temple of Seti I, karnak, Abu Simbel temples, Dendera Temple complex, Aqua Appia, Greek Theatre of Syracuse, Ancient theatre of Taormina, Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, Ancient Greek theatre in Miletus, Delphi, Lion Gate, Ancient Theatre of Epidaurus, Library of Celsus, temple of isis at Philae & Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut not included in the main list (By Age) ? -.@Photnart. (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC).

Add them I💖平沢唯 (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The 5 oldest entries of the list are all archeological sites, not standing buildings. Should we remove them ?

Göbekli Tepe, the Tower of Jericho, Çatalhöyük, Mehrgarh and Durankulak are all archaeological sites. Should we not either delete them from the list (and any other archeological site that has been added) or create a secondary list for them on the page ? What about other cases like Solnitsata, Dholavira or Dolmens ? Eleventh1 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khirbet_Qeiyafa 79.183.217.190 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_extant_buildings/Archive_1&oldid=1197724939"