> militant ... passionate ... owly

I don't think that accurately describes anyone else's comments in this subthread.

People are just pointing out that the article is clearly about cities, not nomadic tribes, but that doesn't at all mean anyone (the article writer or any commenter) is suggesting nomadic tribes don't matter.

They're just different topics is all.

Yes, the list of cities does not include nomads. Also, this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apple_cultivars does not include Valencias.

> populations that have had continuous populations

This misses the point because this isn't about continuity of population in terms of lineage, just perpetual inhabitation. A city such as Sicily over time has exchanged hands and transformed culture many, many times. Cities are cosmopolitan. Demographics change, and culture is not static. It was not for nomadic tribes either. What we can find for them, however, are relics tied to a certain point in time, to a certain place, describing a certain nomadic culture. They are certainly not the same as those persisting today, whether there is some lineage or otherwise.

It also reads funny; what makes them continuous, you mean they did not partake in interracial mingling? We don't know how continuous they really were. We only know that nomadic lifestyle existed a long time, and ultimately is the precursor of settlements; humanity was of course once entirely nomadic, therefore we all have nomadic ancestors. Fukuyama would suggest that centralized agriculture was developed to increase population in order to wage war, which eventually grew enough to necessitate bureaucracy.

> mere mention of nomads would create such a passionate backlash!

I don't see any. Maybe it's something you're feeling?

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

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.

...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.

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.

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?

(Dons owly mask) Wikipedia has you covered:

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

the space they occupy can be conceptualised as a city