I went for a walk in the New Forest this morning. Whenever I go there, I cant help being amused that it has been called the ‘New’ Forest for more than 900 years now (probably since it was set aside in 1079 by William I, but first recorded as that name in the Domesday Book in 1086).
So is there anything that has been named ‘new’ for longer than that?
(To qualify, it must have been continuously named ‘new’, or something synonymous, in any language)
The New World, which I believe has been a term since the earliest Scandinavian writings about it ca 1000 BCE. It’s still used as a third-hand, slightly jocular reference.
Naples, or Neapolis (New City) since around 6th century BC.
The town of Neustadt an Main (New City on the river Main) was first mentioned in 889, and still exists. There are about a dozen Neustadts in Germany and this was only the second one I checked, so there may be one older.
That’s good, but not really sure it qualifies. Does anyone regard the current name to still convey the meaning ’ new’, or has it just become a name now?
ETA then again, ‘Neopolitan’ does.
I think that for all of these, the “new” is considered part of “just a name”. I don’t think you can really disqualify “Neapolis” on those grounds.
Le Pont Neuf in Paris. That translates to “the new bridge” and was completed in 1599. It’s probably the oldest single structure still called “new.”
The New Testament would seem to predate most of these, depending on when you consider it to have come into form under that name.
The current name of the town, Neustadt, certainly isn’t nearly that old. I would guess the name was coined fairly recently, probably 20th century. Most towns that are called Neustadt are actually fairly new administrative entities, comprised of smaller and much older places as well as new settlements.
It’s not really a contender for the oldest, but “New Street” in Plymouth (UK) was built in 1584, and now holds one of the cities oldest buildings.
Also not a contender but an interesting side note: Chiang Mai is the main regional city in northern Thailand. It’s name literally means “New City,” but it was founded in 1296 – as the new capital of the Kingdom of Lan Na.
The word Neanderthal comes, ultimately, from the Greek “new man”. * from German Neanderthal “Neander Valley,” name of a gorge near Düsseldorf where humanoid fossils were identified in 1856. The place name is from the Graecized form of Joachim Neumann (literally “new man,” Greek neo-ander),
But I guess Neanderthals didn’t call themselves that, did they.
I think if we have to draw a line, it needs to be where the term ‘new’ (in whatever language) becomes sufficiently corrupted that it no longer could be casually read by anyone as ‘new’ neapolis would qualify, neapolitan also, but ‘Napoli’ maybe not.
Cite? The Scandinavians didn’t realize they had found a new continent. To the best of my knowledge, the term dates to a letter entitled Mundus Novus (New World) published by Amerigo Vespucci around 1502. Vespucci was the first to really promote the idea that the new discoveries were a new continent (Columbus of course believed he was in Asia), which in large part is why they were named after him instead of Columbus.
It’s commonly used today in biogeography and other fields; there’s nothing antiquated or jocular about its use.
Novgorod, in Russia, meaning “new city,” is first recorded in the 10th Century AD (although the city itself is older).
I may be misremembering but I thought the equivalent term was used in the records we have of the early Viking explorers who found Greenland and then Nova Scotia. I don’t think it matters how they saw their discoveries to validate the notion of “new world.” It’s been some time since I read up on that topic and I might have conflated later references.
I know it has use in things like species differentiation and such; I just tagged that on to note that it’s not an abandoned term. (For those who might think it hasn’t been used since Colombo’s day.)
The Norse may have referred to Greenland and Vinland as “new lands,” perhaps, but I have never heard that they had a generic term for them. At any rate, since the existence of Vinland and even Greenland was virtually forgotten for centuries, they are certainly not the origin of the term “New World.” That dates to Vespucci.
Ahem.
The New Kingdom of Egypt started 1550 BC.
Ahem Ahem
[QUOTE=The OP]
To qualify, it must have been continuously named ‘new’, or something synonymous, in any language
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the New Kingdom is still around in the way Mangetout intends
How about Cenozoic:
(Bolding mine)