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.