5 ms·

Nomads, practically by definition, do not continuously inhabit cities for long periods.

JamesG124 7y ago
the space they occupy can be conceptualised as a city
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
...and because they don't have a pin on the map, are ignored. As was my point. No worries; being ignored and marginalized is among the least troubles they have.
- DeusExMachina 7y ago
  Does that mean that we have to force them into any list even if they don't belong there, just to be politically correct? This is a list about cities, not civilizations. Nomadic populations can be included in lists that talk about those topics. There can also be a list of "oldest nomadic populations" from which cities are excluded.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Hey Mr. Strawman! I just made an observation - there are many older stable populations, than older stable named cities. Keep your owly comments to yourself.
- jlawson 7y ago
  It's a list of old cities. Of course it's not going to mention a people who didn't have cities. It doesn't mention stone age European or Asian nomads either. I'm also confused at your 14,000 years comment... this isn't the age of any particular polity or ethnic group; just the amount of time since people settled North America. Across the old world, comparable tribes lived for much, much longer. And in Africa you can go back even further. What exactly do you think should have happened here? Simply not allow lists of old cities? Or perhaps put in special entries for nomad tribes even though they're not, you know, cities? What's the goal that would have made sense but also made you happy?
- mturmon 7y ago
  (Dons owly mask) Wikipedia has you covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nomadic_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nomadic_peoples
econcon 7y ago
Depends on which nomads, Mongols can be considered nomads but records most from the human remains of that era show they were importing grains from some of the remote places as the grains they were consuming could not have been grown nearby.

the space they occupy can be conceptualised as a city

...and because they don't have a pin on the map, are ignored. As was my point. No worries; being ignored and marginalized is among the least troubles they have.

DeusExMachina 7y ago
Does that mean that we have to force them into any list even if they don't belong there, just to be politically correct? This is a list about cities, not civilizations. Nomadic populations can be included in lists that talk about those topics. There can also be a list of "oldest nomadic populations" from which cities are excluded.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Hey Mr. Strawman! I just made an observation - there are many older stable populations, than older stable named cities. Keep your owly comments to yourself.
jlawson 7y ago
It's a list of old cities. Of course it's not going to mention a people who didn't have cities. It doesn't mention stone age European or Asian nomads either. I'm also confused at your 14,000 years comment... this isn't the age of any particular polity or ethnic group; just the amount of time since people settled North America. Across the old world, comparable tribes lived for much, much longer. And in Africa you can go back even further. What exactly do you think should have happened here? Simply not allow lists of old cities? Or perhaps put in special entries for nomad tribes even though they're not, you know, cities? What's the goal that would have made sense but also made you happy?
mturmon 7y ago
(Dons owly mask) Wikipedia has you covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nomadic_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nomadic_peoples

econcon 7y ago

Depends on which nomads, Mongols can be considered nomads but records most from the human remains of that era show they were importing grains from some of the remote places as the grains they were consuming could not have been grown nearby.