I think the idea of a site inherently implies a construct of time within a temporal period.
For instance: the Haimalayas were once under water -- although the 'site' spelled in global co-ordinates may be the same the geo-physical condition is markedly different now than it had been 50m years ago.
Also the definition of a site inherently has as a parameter : a lack of mobility. ( in german, and possibly in other cultures/languages for instaAlsonce, real estate is classified, translated, as immobilien -- quite legibly, for us im- mobile -- lack of mobility -- stationary)
On a cultural level, one must question migration itself -- does a migratory condition preclude the potential existence of a site? When a living being dies in a particular place in its journey,
the journey remains dynamic, the place of death becomes immortalized.
A site, with regard to a narrative, then requires more than the glacially
slow movements of geological time, less than the temporary transience of a migrant -- but certainly somewhere in between.
In some ways this intersticial temporality is of our own, culturally specific construction.
made me think of the differences between the cultural production of nomadism (weeping camel) vs. the arguably much larger body of cultural production of settlement (starting with agriculture I suppose and leading to modern science etc) I wonder what kind of 'mobile infrastructure' we would need to maintain a sedentary level of cultural production on the move?
ReplyDelete