The age of cities

[TheokinsJ]

Basically in my fantasy world there are several cities, all of which are thousands of years old and were built of stone and rock. Is this stretching the effect time has on the world? I mean I think about the cities of the Ancient Romans and the greeks, and how there are only ruins left after only about two thousand years, whereas the cities in my plot are probably ten times that age. Can stone last that long? Or would it be worn away over the centuries and become nothing? I am wondering how plausible is it for these cities to still exist, and if I am perhaps pushing my story past where the line is drawn for realism. Anyway, just wanted some opinions from people on what they thought.

 

[CupofJoe]

There will always be wear but in general terms buildings fall in to disrepair and fail only when they are no longer useful or usable...*
If they are still functional they will be kept in good order [unless society cannot maintain them for some reason] - I think the forum in Rome was used as a Grain store well into the 19C because it was big warm and dry... and still functional.
As for how fast or how much maintenance is required... That can depend of weather and traffic and what stone it is as well as how well something was built.
Rain and frost [and high winds and storms etc.] can bring almost any building down sometime in just a season. Yet in dry still warm conditions [Egypt Iraq etc.] stone buildings have stood for 3-4-5 thousand years. In some cases it is only the wooden bits like the roof that have failed. Mud building can last a thousand year and more with regular maintenance.
In the UK and France I've been to castles "only" 5-600 years old where the steps have been almost completely worn away by hundreds of thousands of feet and huge defensive walls have needed replacing or knocking down because of frost and damp.
I'm know very little about rock, but I know that they react to weather and wear very differently.
I'm sure I've read that the Appian Way [the "main road" in to Rome] was relaid every 20-30 years because of the amount of traffic wearing it out... but bits of Roman roads elsewhere are still in use today...
* unless Fashion demands things be changed...

 

[Anders Ämting]

How long stone lasts depends on the type of stone, stuff like the climate and, ultimately, people.

It's not like that stuff falls apart on it's own. Look at the Parthenon. It's 2400 years old and still standing, having only started to wither in modern times due to pollution. You know why it's actually in ruins? Because the Turks decided to use it as a gunpowder magazine in 1687 and of course managed to get it blown up. If it wasn't for that catastrophy, we'd still have a mostly intact Parthenon.

And the Parthenon is just made out of marble and limestone, which is relatively easily damaged. Build the place out of granite and it's going to last forever.

There is an amusing but somewhat depressing anecdote I heard from around these parts: There was this old medieval stone church that should probably have counted as a cultural heritage. But some hundred years ago the locals, being kinda stupid and short-sighted, decided they wanted a modern church instead. So they made up this bullshit argument that the old church was dangerous and could fall apart at any moment, getting permission to demolish it. So they got a bunch of dynamite strapped to the church, set it off and... nothing. The damn church didn't even budge, it was just that solid. They needed multiple tries to finally bring it down.

What I'm trying to say is, a lot of things that were "lost to time" was actually lost to humanity's tendency to destroy stuff because time just doesn't work fast enough.

Fact is, if you build a robust house out of stone and just leave it alone, odds are good it will stay exactly where it is practically forever, or at least until it's demolished by an earthquake or ground down by a giant glacier. There is a reason geological time is measured in ages rather than millenia. I mean, the Stone Henge ain't going anywhere, unless of course some bastard comes around and decides to tear it down to make room for a shopping mall or something.

The main reason ancient cities didn't remain in their original forms is that cities weren't normally made entirely out of stone - with the exceptions of stuff like temples and pyramids, they were mostly made out of bricks and wood, because that's just way less work than lugging enormous amounts of heavy stone around. Thing is, ancient-style bricks don't hold a candle to stone it terms of durability, which is why only the really impressive stuff remains today.

Now, if this city of yours is entirely made out of a fairly tough type of stone, and people are still actually living it it, maintaining it and replacing stuff that is worn out or broken, and nobody does anything stupid like deciding stone is so ten thouand years ago so lets tear everything down and start over... then yeah, I could see the place last for several millenia, easy.

 

[Chilari]

Stone buildings become ruins when they are not maintained. If you constantly maintain it, and it was well built in the first place, it'll last ages. In Bridgnorth in the UK, the castle was blown up with gunpowder in the 1650s, but a section of it remains standing at a very odd angle to this day - and is in no danger of falling down. It was already about 200 years old when it blown up. In Athens there is a section of Mycenean cyclopian wall (built of large ,irregularly shaped stones) that, while partially underground, still stands. That's some 3000+ years old. At Hathusa in Turkey, there are remains of a city that's 4000 years old, largely still standing. Stone lasts if it's well built and properly maintained. But at the same time there are weaknesses - the joints between stones. Let water in there, and let it freeze, and well Ludlow town wall shows the effect - a medieval wall which, thanks to the cold wet weather recently, has collapsed in two places in the last month.

Remember, a lot of cities are, quite simply, built on top of themselves. Terry Pratchett jokes about this of Ankh Morpork in one or other of the Discworld novels, but it's real too. When Heinrich Shlieman was "excavating" Troy, he "dug" through several different layers of the city before finding the one he thought was active at the time of Helen and Paris and Achilles and Odysseus etc. That city was many-layered, sometimes destroyed, rebuilt, improved on, added to, extended, rearranged and more. It lasted a good while too. Elsewhere in Turkey there's a place called Catalhoyuk which wasn't stone built, but was built up generation by generation so that what was once a flat plain became a hill on top of which the settlement was located. It's a hugely impressive site, active for 1800 years in the Neolithic. Dig deep enough in London and you hit the Victorian, the medieval, the Roman, even the prehistoric.

if it's big and important enough, and well built in the first place, there's no reason something would not survive. It might need maintenance - replaced stones in walkways or stairwells usually, repointing, directing rainwater away from where it might cause damage and so on - but it can certainly survive.

 

[Telcontar]

To sort of sum up the above for ya, Theokins (especially Anders' excellent post) - no, it is not outside the realm of belief to think that a city could last for ten-thousand years or whatever amount of time. Provided it is constantly inhabited and maintained, it is perfectly believable. Just keep in mind that cities which are continually inhabited for that long will probably change quite a bit, especially if war ever visits. Parts will be destroyed, other parts will be expanded or rebuilt. Even a city of stone is a living, changing thing when lots of people call it home.

 

[shangrila]

Stone will last. You have only to watch the series Beyond Humans (I think, I can't remember the exact name) where it basically says that achievements from the last few hundred years will only last a few hundred more before collapsing to see the strength that stone has.