No, Baghdad isn't the oldest, not even close -- seems it was founded in 762 AD by the second Abbasid caliph.
Jericho is the oldest city (unless you arbitrarily declare "it wasn't really a *city*, as I've seen some archaeological texts do), though not the oldest continually occupied city site. Damascus likes to claim that title, according to some travel stuff I saw.
There seem to be several exceptions and special cases (i.e., gaps in occupation, and that modern Cairo is essentially ancient Memphis, etc.) on that list. It seems Baghdad doesn't even make that list.
My first thought was Damascus (which is on the list); also Jericho.
Machu Picchu isn't very old either, according to the latest theories. Check out this (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/science/social/18INCA.html?ex=1048568400&en=712f0554b334e265&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) for more info.
And no, I don't know the answer to your question. Interesting one, though. *grin*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Jericho is the oldest city (unless you arbitrarily declare "it wasn't really a *city*, as I've seen some archaeological texts do), though not the oldest continually occupied city site. Damascus likes to claim that title, according to some travel stuff I saw.
É
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
My first thought was Damascus (which is on the list); also Jericho.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But the question seems to have been based on a common confusion, anyhow: as noted earlier in this thread, Baghdad isn't even that old.
From:
no subject
And no, I don't know the answer to your question. Interesting one, though. *grin*
From:
no subject