At what point is the Delaware Block House[1] still the original building[2]? You can see the roof was replaced recently, and presumably the rendering[3]..
[3]: In the episode "Heroes and Villains" (Only Fools and Horses UK Sitcom), Trigger wins an award for having owned the same broom for 20 years. He reveals that it has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles, but insists it is still the same broom.
The article says it traces the “oldest intact building in each US state”. Wikipedia says that only a “portion of the structure [the Pirates’ House] was built in 1734”. It sounds like the latter doesn’t match their definition.
I'm not sure what their criteria is, as the part of the Alamo in their image was started in 1744 and never actually completed. (Depending on your definition of "completed," I suppose.)
The article isn't consistent, either - some of these are mentioned as having been jacked up and moved several times, whereas other claim to be the oldest building in the state on the same foundation, some are heavily reconstructed.
I was thinking the same thing. It's an odd list. It may make sense to exclude cliff dwellings if the list should be the oldest buildings still being used. Still, old, well-made buildings are very neat even if not technically the oldest.
Two indigenous structures are listed; Colorado and New Mexico both have old pueblo settlements.
Many of the indigenous villages in the mid-Atlantic area were burned by the English for one reason or another. I suspect many permanent settlements elsewhere suffered similar fates.
The listing is "oldest intact buildings" and Hovenweep is a ruin. Though, I'd agree that the listing, as published, is a bit strange, given the Molalla Log House is also a ruin (collapsed roof).
Fair enough - but then we could also discuss the restored kiva at Edge of the Cedars. It isn't a replica, it is a restoration from the original structure. Would that count?
I guess the point being simply that it seems more thought could have been put into the states where Native American structures have survived.
This surprised me as well, as I was under the impression that most / all of what's at Fort Nisqually is replica / reproduction, especially given that it was moved many miles from its original location.
A lot of white peoples' buildings didn't survive either. I'm actually kind of curious how different this list would be if Sherman didn't burn a bunch of southern cities during the Civil War.
After Georgia he went through South Carolina with the specific goal of destroying things to punish them for being the state most responsible for the rebellion.
A lot of the natives (at least in the NE and Midwest) did not live in shelter that were meant to last for hundreds of years. They lived in semi-temporary small buildings
'The Oldest Building' actually should say 'Oldest Known Building'. Hard to believe that in a country this large there aren't structures that are around (occupied or not) that are simply not catalogued in any way or don't fit with what the article considers a 'building'.
That personal loan website is where it was originally posted. The original was posted on July 3rd compared to the ArchDaily article which was posted on July 24th.
There is even a note about it at the bottom of the ArchDaily post.
This article was originally published by NetCredit and has been republished with permission.
"apparently older than anything in 22 US states" Um, you do know that in 1770 hardly anything west of the mississippi and east of the cascades was settled, right?
In Washington State, Bellingham's "Pickett house" is "the oldest documented wooden structure on its original site in Washington.".
http://www.historylink.org/File/20594
(The Fort Nisqually/Hudson's Bay granary was moved to Tacoma in 1934 and later 'restored'.)
Our house (Americans) is from 1909 and we think its crazy how old it is.
Our friends from the Netherlands came to visit and informed us that the next day they would visit DC (2-3 hours drive) and then swing by the upper peninsula of Michigan the day after (20+ hours).
My local cafe is older than that, I've never personally lived in a house older than about 200 years though.
A couple of weeks ago I had a pint at the Kirkstone Pass Inn [0] and was thinking about Triggers Broom [1]. The foundations of the core of that Inn date back to 1496, but clearly the carpets aren't that old.
At what stage does a building become new? Lincoln Cathedral was built in 1072, but rebuilt in 1185. The Man and Scythe (a pub) in Bolton was rebuilt as recently as 1636, but the front of the building is only 100 or so years old. The cellar probably predates the 1636 year, and there was a pub of that name in 1251. Exact details of when old buildings (which are still in use) are rebuilt are typically lost to history.
Parts of my local are 600 years old, and there's a Roman road about 5 minutes walk away from my house. I'm always amazed when I look at an Ordnance Survey map and see the amount of tumulus (burial mound) and other ancient structures. We are surrounded by history but mostly unaware of it. I sometimes wonder about what's out there waiting to be discovered. Perhaps one day we'll have archaeological drones roaming around looking for undiscovered treasures.
That's not what I'm thinking of really - I should have been clearer - I was thinking more of something like the Mars Curiosity rover - autonomous drones, not necessarily aerial, probably solar powered, able to roam around on their own for months/years at a time looking for interesting stuff.
One thing that I love about Scotland is that there is so much ancient mysterious stuff about that rather little attention is paid to a lot of it e.g. Cademuir Hill near Peebles - impressive fortifications with stone cheval de frise and a name that apparently derived from the Gaelic for "the great fight". Who built the fortresses, who the "great fight" was between and when - nobody really cares that much. And that's in no way exceptional.
And then there are the forts where the walls were melted - by accident or on purpose - nobody is really sure:
> Who built the fortresses, who the "great fight" was between and when - nobody really cares that much.
“No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad, Why we fought or why we died. No, all that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important.”
The village I grew up in has a cliff sided promontory called the "Green Castle" - turns out that 1000+ years ago it held a substantial Pictish fort. As a kid I've picked bits of charred wood out from where one of the sides where it is eroding away.
Was it burned down by enemies (a Viking siege?), by accident or on purpose. Nobody knows.
An old jape, probably from the 1950s, heard from my father:
A tour guide somewhere in the US southwest stands in front of a building and says "This building is one of the oldest in the territory, a hundred and twenty years old. Think of that folks, a hundred and twenty years old."
A voice from the back of the crowd says, "I can't wait to get back to Damascus and tell them."
Haha, my own house already 90 years old. I got married in my city's town hall which has been in active use since 1544. It's a different world from the US :)
The oldest building in my city would be walls from somewhere around 0 BC. It was a rather important nexus for the Roman Army due to the geographic location. Though it's largely buried under more modern walls from around 13th century.
There is also social housing, build in the 16th century by one of the top 3 wealthiest people in modern history. Still in use today, about 1€ a year rent.
Neither the concept nor a symbol for zero existed in the system of Roman numerals. The Babylonian system of the BC era had used the idea of "nothingness" without considering it a number, and the Romans enumerated in much the same way. Wherever a modern zero would have been used, Bede and Dionysius Exiguus did use Latin number words, or the word nulla (meaning "nothing") alongside Roman numerals.[1][3][4] Zero was invented in India in the sixth century, and was either transferred or reinvented by the Arabs by about the eighth century. The Arabic numeral for zero (0) did not enter Europe until the thirteenth century. Even then, it was known only to very few, and only entered widespread use in Europe by the seventeenth century.
Well, Oxford University has been going for 922 years.
Some of the buildings have been updated a bit, however, at Oxford and plenty of other university/school towns in England there are buildings that are still used today for their original teaching purposes, having been built many centuries ago way before the Columbus story of 'discovery' was written.
So it's a competition where older is better? Even older than European buildings is the European attitude that leads them to add irrelevant comments proclaiming their superiority to every discussion on the internet.
I can promise you that's not an attitude limited to Europeans. A million irrelevant comments of "there are two kinds of countries, ones that put a man on the moon and ones that didn't" can stand in testament to that
I felt there was a comment like OPs before I opened the discussion. Only thing I'm left wondering is which country OP is from. Seems like a German thing to say.
Taos Pueblo for instance - built around 1000AD, still occupied. Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe - 1610. Cliff dwellings of the American Southwest - 750AD, should be top of the list in 4 states.
Why does the list cite Mesa Verde in Colorado yet ignores New Mexico's Chaco Canyon, which pre-dates Mesa Verde by 300 years and certainly is much older than Taos Pueblo? There are also Anasazi sites in Arizona as well that aren't quite as old as Chaco but, none-the-less, are older than the mission they list. Further, Utah has thousands of Anasazi sites from granaries to whole villages that date to the 12th and 13th century. Why didn't they make the cut? If the criteria is that the building must be intact, then Mesa Verde shouldn't be there given that it has been heavily restored from how it appeared when first discovered by Wetherill in the late 19th century.
Ah! I didn't scroll all the way down. Just took other comments about '1600s' and concluded, most of American History ignored again. It happens a lot.
Look at any New England building claiming to be 'oldest this or that'. Yet New Mexico, Arizona, California have buildings predating them by centuries. Even boring ol Iowa has mounds (thousands originally) constructed in the 1400s.
It's always amusing to find out what Americans think is old. Most of the buildings around here are mid to late Victorian with the odd Elizabethan dwelling sitting about two feet lower than anywhere else. The church is 900 years old with the present building dating from 1483.
I chuckle when I realise we have public conveniences here in the UK that are older than Canada.
So question. I always see statements like this online. And I sometimes wonder what is the point. Like it's a colony. The oldest structure are from societies that are all but dead. What's the value of statements like that?
People can't seem to help it. Much the same as when people go abroad and compare everything unfavorably to their home country. Seems like it's reflexive.
"The difference between America and England is that Americans think 100 years is a long time, while the English think 100 miles is a long way." --Earle Hitchner
The UK has always had the advantage of being an island protected from the wars that periodically sweep through mainland areas. There are plenty of cities that I have seen Europe that, due to post-WWII reconstruction, make New York and Chicago seem positively old and historic.
Tectonically stable as well.
On the other side there is Japan where there is very little old at all - the earthquakes and landslides see to that.
It's a big problem. All anybody wants to do in England is buy and prop up some ancient building.
It's hardly surprising we have an energy usage crisis. Everything ends up set in aspic.
It's always amusing when non Americans have to chime in with examples of all of their older things. As if it invalidates anything that's newer. This is an article about the oldest buildings in the states. Which means it's old for the Americans. We get it, you have older stuff, and your infrastructure is generally poorly laid out because of it. Congratulations!
PS. 200km is apparently a "long way" for most Europeans. I find that amusing.
> It's always amusing to find out what Americans think is old.
It's not that we "think" those buildings are old. They are the oldest. There are no older buildings. Age is relative. If you colonize a pacific island, the oldest building will be 1 year old. That doesn't mean the colonizers think 1 year is a long time.
If you want to get into a manhood measuring contest we could broaden the criteria to include native american structures.
If you want to get into a manhood measuring contest we could broaden the criteria to include native american structures.
I don't want to get in to a content, but I am interested in how old they are. The oldest structure here in the UK is a neolithic dwelling dated to ~3700 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar
Well, there is Sechin Bajo from around 3,500 BC, though we know there were people in the Americas at least 8000 years before that, unfortunately their structures haven't survived (that we have found).
[1]: Delaware, the Block House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_House
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
[3]: In the episode "Heroes and Villains" (Only Fools and Horses UK Sitcom), Trigger wins an award for having owned the same broom for 20 years. He reveals that it has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles, but insists it is still the same broom.