Scott,

As always with tense and aspect questions, a little more context might clarify the sentence.  Certainly "was" would work in the first clause, but the choice between "was" and "had been" depends also on the writer's perspective on the time of these states or events.  If the writer's temporal stance is the time of the second clause, 330 years previous, then the past perfect may say what he wants to say.  If his temporal stance is today, then the past perfect is expressing its "remote past" function and could be replaced with "was" if specification of remote past is not important to the writer.

At least that's how I read it.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: January 20, 2010 9:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Past perfect?

Please don’t shoot me for reentering such a touchy area but, I need comment on the following:
“Politically Artois had only been French control for less than a century and a half and that period had ended 330 years previously.”  [context is a discussion of a 1569 tax roll of Artois].
I read this sentence and wondered whether the first ‘had been’ should have been ‘was.’

Scott Catledge

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/