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

[Aron Faegre]

But isn't it good to move goal-posts!  David L's comments are right on.  We've
got to fundamentally change what we think of when we use the word "permanent".
This is a linguist site so lets take joy in learning how our own language frames
what we see.

Aron

Mike Cleven wrote:

> >From: David Lewis <coyotez at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
> >
> >Dave-
> >I appreciate the definition you have provided. It is within the boundaries
> >of anthropological thought. For me, I like to think of Indigenous villages
> >and settlements and even winter "camps" as also permanent. I just got out
> >of an archaeology class which was about the archaeological history of the
> >Northwest Coast. Within that type of analysis, people have left cultural
> >deposits on the same sites for literally thousands of years, from 11,000
> >BCE on the upper coast, and from about 9,000 BCE on most other coast sites,
> >until the present era. To me this must constitute a permanent settlement.
> >Even if there is a seasonal round, or cycle, to various camps, like winter
> >camp, fish camp, etc., the area and land was continuously occupied for
> >longer than all other colonial permanent settlements. To me this argument,
> >and not necessarily those making the argument right now, but the adherence
> >to European-style cultural settlements as the only true permanent
> >settlements needs to be challenged. It might even be called an ethnocentric
> >theory out of the past. This is a serious fallacy in anthropological theory
> >which I will challenge whenever it appears. I think the indigenous
> >perspective needs to be recognized here as manytimes even the colonial
> >trading centers were placed near or on top of an already well established
> >pre-historic cultural site.
>
> I'm feeling like the goalposts have been moved, you guys; the issue that
> brought this term "permanent settlements" into play was the
> influence/presence of French-speakers in what I thought was the BC Interior
> when the subject was raised; Dave R. seemed to think they weren't around
> until after mid-19th Century, when in fact it's at that point that they
> became outnumbered by other kinds of non-native; it's a given in BC that
> most modern "permanent settlements" are on the sites of older native
> settlements/camps; because the geography only allows/benefits them in
> certain locations; you don't have many choices in a province that one
> colonial official described ("not without a touch of horror" as the quoting
> historian said) as "a veritable sea of mountains".  Hope, Lytton, Lillooet,
> Ashcroft and other places are where they are frankly because they couldn't
> have been anywhere else......
>
> MC
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com