Not really relevant but interesting anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7820926.stm
Printable View
Not really relevant but interesting anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7820926.stm
Bit of a misnomer really. Constantinople/Istanbul was founded by Constantine, and will never be older than that. Byzantium, the more-or-less Greek city that predated it was built on a very convenient site, while interesting this is hardly surprising.
Hmmm, I think those lads have mixed things up a bit, least to say. You see, the city of Constantinople was, as Philipvs stated, built by Constantine. So even if there was a previous settlement on it's foundations, it doesn't mean the city existed longer than when it was build and named by Constantine.
Maion
hmmm
just because you find skeletons, rocks and preserved biological matter in a certain place it is no real proof that there has been a continuous settlement going on over a period of 8000 years. and they keep stating the city had been thought to be "2000 years old", but either it's 1700 years (Constantinople) or 2700 years (Byzantion).
all in all more of a red-top "scoop".
Read about this in a history magazine a couple of days ago. Ridiculous. I we go by the same logic I could probably prove New York is 1 000 years older then believed simply by presenting some random Indian finding and say "look, there were people here 1 000 years ago! It must have been a city!".