Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:45:22 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Anthropology needs to come to the aid of history here. From the perspective
of New York City, Virginia isn't settled yet. Where are its rafts of 40
story buildings?
Seriously, human beings have traversed a set of economic uses of the land.
From hunting and gathering to pastorialism to swidden agriculture to village
or settled agriculture to industrialization to what some call
post-industrialization.
The Indians of eastern Virginia practiced swidden or slash and burn
migratory agriculture, supplemented by hunting when the Europeans arrived.
They, of course, brought village agriculture, expansive but non-migratory
with them. The Indians certainly considered themselves "settled" on the
land but their practices were different from the English. While village or
settled agriculture used less land (or land reserves) for crops, they made
up for it by keeping pastures: in New England sheep predominated, in the
Southeast pigs predominated.
The anthropologist Marvin Harris argues that each progression in economic
systems actually requires human being to do more work, and is thus forced by
environmental and prudential causes. (See Marvin Harris, Cannibals and
Kings.) The Powatans could have done village agriculture but their
population didn't require it and it was repugnant to them.
Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Virginia Npblemen
> What do you mean by settled? As far as I can tell, Virginia wasn't
> settled
> under the common definition of the word until the English came in and put
> down permanent roots.
>
> J South
>
> Of course, no one from England, noble or otherwise, "settled
> Virginia"--it
> was already settled long before the English showed up.
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.
|
|
|