The city is too old.
Just for reference ...
My house was built in 1903. The college I went to was founded in 1352. The city my wife grew up in was occupied by the Romans sometime between 70 and 80 AD.
Having lived in both countries I think that's a good way of thinking about it (for the average person.)
(Obviously individuals will differ; 100 miles is a half day cycle ride for me so I don't think of it as that long a way.)
Are you suggesting that the majority of people in America think 100 years is a comparatively short time span? Probably not.
I freely acknowledge and agree that there are Americans who think 100 years is a short time, and Englanders who think 100 miles is a short distance.
It's just way bigger than its ancient self, so you are less likely to find archeological sites.
Why are archaeological sites are so far underground? Are ancient cities actually getting higher in altitude as old ruins get covered up?
Why Pompeii was buried is clear. I am more curious about continuously occupied cities like Rome. How did the ruins get underground there?
The best answer I could find was this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/813/how-come-archae...
It says that abandoned ancient cities have in fact risen in altitude over the centuries becoming "mounds". But it also says that Rome's famous ruins are at surface level, but doesn't explain ruins that have been found deep underground. So I'm left wondering if Rome and cities like it have gotten a lot higher or not.
If you ever go to Rome, you'll notice that the Colosseum, for example, is at surface level, but most of the land around it is raised up. During street work, you can see parts where they've uncovered foundations, often digging down quite a ways to get to what was the street level at the time. In a place like Rome, when they uncover new ruins, they'll generally be studied for a while and then covered back up because it's the easiest way to preserve the site because they still need the land above it to be usable.
I recently watched a TV show from a relatively old series about underground cities where they showed the underground of Istanbul. Very interesting, but I can't remember the name of the show.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodrome_of_Constantinople for instance:
"The course of the old racetrack has been indicated with paving, although the actual track is some 2 m (6.6 ft) below the present surface. The surviving monuments of the Spina (the middle barrier of the racecourse), the two obelisks and the Serpentine Column, now sit in holes in a landscaped garden."
The county I am living in currently, will be celebrating only its 42 birthday tomorrow...think about it.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground#Trains
It's still not hard to stand on any of the trains as long as you're not right beside the door on a Tube (unless you're extremely unusually tall, but the odds are well against that).
The first underground lines were in 1863. That's the mid 19th century. The first deep level train (what's actually the Tube) was the City & South London Railway, opened in 1890 (late 19th century). Check yo fax.
> it’s difficult to stand in most of its trains
Not unless you're like 6' 6" (and thus taller than 99.5% of males). http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62018000/jpg/_62018161...
> opened in 1890 (late 19th century). Check yo fax.
HN, of all communities, should be familiar with off-by-one errors. My apologies for the confusion; you are right, I was referring to the late 19th and early 20th century.
That's 30 years before Christopher Columbus was born — and Richard III; 100 years before Queen Elizabeth I was born.
It was built before chimneys were invented: one was fitted at some point, probably at the same time the upstairs floor was put in (you can't have an upstairs without a chimney). The refurbishment date is scratched into the plaster work: Feb 1722.