<shabon> ... this gets kind of technical ...

[Mike Cleven]

>From: David Lewis <coyotez at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
>
>At 12:15 AM 04/02/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>  Rather, I might expect any
>>>European-derived loan [heh heh, sorry!] term for this concept to have
>>>entered CJ via frequent, and perduring, contact between Indians and
>>>cheechako -- i.e. in and near permanent settlements.
>>
>>There were no permanent settlements pre-1858.
>
>What is this definition of permanent settlement? Indigenous peoples had
>permanent settlements. And in Oregon, Jason Lee, and McLaughlin had
>permanent settlements established before this time. Maybe you mean in BC?

Do I have to qualify everything with "non-native" in order to be
understood?; David R. was specifically talking about the French presence (or
lack of it) in BC prior to the middle of the 19th Century; so the context of
my reply was pretty clearly not in reference to native settlements.

And, yes, David's question/statement had specifically to do with British
Columbia and the French influence there, specifically again in the Interior.
  Unless we consider HBC outposts to be "permanent settlements" there
_weren't_ any non-native settlements in the Interior of BC (permanent or
otherwise) until 1858, when Cayoosh/Lillooet was "founded" (by displacing
the native settlement of S'etl); similarly "the Forks" (Lytton) displaced
Camchin/Kumsheen.  Port Douglas, Pemberton Meadows, and what would later
become Seton Portage were also settled at this time, although Pemberton
Meadows was eventually completely abandoned, Port Douglas devolved into its
original status as a native-only community, and the Portage communities were
(Wapping and Flushing) were abandoned by non-natives until the coming of the
railway in the 1910s.

Yale dates from the same period as Cayoosh/Lillooet - _but_ it's not
technically part of the Interior, although it served as a gateway.

MC


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com