Re: OT: Naming Continents
|From:||# 1 <salut_vous_autre@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, December 16, 2004, 3:08|
I think you are right: when we name something it is to differenciate it from
the other things
If there are not any known continents to have to find a name it is useless
///You'll aways call two things by the same name unless you find a
Bering Strait's emmigrants never saw they were changing of continent so they
never had to name it because they never knew nothing else.
So Amerindians (is it the way to say it?) probably had a name for the world
or the "island" they were on.
Dan Sulani wrote
On 13 Dec, caeruleancentaur wrote:
# 1 <salut_vous_autre@H...> wrote:
When Colomb disovered America it was in the region of Cuba and in
Can we logically connect Columbus with the naming of America? I'm
guite sure he didn't give that name to what he had "discovered." The
vikings called it Vinland, IIRC. And who knows what the first
immigrants across the Bering Strait called it?
Question: Do hunter-gatherer bands have the concept of areas
which require names? ( Even if they did, I wouldn't suppose that
the first immigrants across the Bering Strait would have a
("Hey! That mammoth herd has taken us into a totally new continent!
Anybody have a good name for it?" ;-) ).
My personal feeling is that hunter-gatherer bands would name
landmarks and, at the most, areas close to and associated with
landmarks. It seems to me that naming areas implies ownership
and control over areas with defined borders. And, AFAIK,
this didn't come into being until the advent of farming and a more
Still, I could be wrong about this. If anybody knows for certain
about any hunter-gatherer bands with a culture of naming
well-defined areas (not merely "our hunting grounds", but giving them
a name), I'd be very happy to be corrected.