Of Analogies and Nightmares

In class we were recently given a conversation from an archaeology archive and a following blog post that was written in response. The conversation was between Ramilisonina (Madagascar archaeologist) and a journalist about possible links between megaliths in Madagascar and Stonehenge. The idea perked my interest and I set about trying to find out more about Stonehenge because I personally don't know very much about the subject. (Let me mention that if I misstep here concerning any evidence please let me know.)

First of all, let me say that the matter of Stonehenge is a nightmare. Anyone who has tried to locate valid information on the internet about its purpose will support me on this - or maybe it's just me?? There are so many different theories that it's impossible to sift through them all in order to get at legitimate information. To further add to the confusion, each proposal is backed with very passionate arguments and posited as fact. But I digress... 

Taking the information that I gathered (with a bit more than a grain of salt), I reread both the article, and the blog post. I do believe that analogy is extremely useful in anthropology and gives new perspectives that otherwise may not have come to light. These analogies however must be made carefully because in anthropology context is everything. Customs of different regions may be similar but they will never be identical because they were born out of different cultures. I believe the key with analogies is to identify the possibilities. 

So concerning the interview with Ramilisonina, I think it's really interesting to consider similarities between Stonehenge (Woodhenge & Bluestonehenge included) and the megaliths of Madagascar. Thus, I appreciate the subject of the interview and his theories concerning the connections, yet my problem lies more with the technical aspect of it. First of all, he has answered some massive questions within 1-4 sentences which (to me), simplifies the issue too much. I am left wondering if his answers were purposely brief, shortened by the journalist, or directed at a specific audience that has little knowledge of the subject. 

Secondly, the interview begins by describing possible connections, yet in later questions they are applied as indisputable fact. At first Stonehenge "seems to commemorate the dead" and then suddenly Stonehenge represents the dead, Woodhenge represents the living, and Bluestonehenge was a place of preparation of the dead. I feel like I've missed something... 

Moving onto the responsive blog post, I believe the author dismissed the possibilities too quickly. I personally don't believe that the age of a practice influences the thought process behind it. Just because something is developed now, doesn't mean the thought process didn't exist in the past. For all we know, the builders of Stonehenge (and other '-henges') also associated stone with death, and wood with life. 

Furthermore, the author plays down the difficulty in anthropology/archaeology of discovering the purpose of ancient monuments. You  have to start somewhere in order to build a workable theory. He writes about the theory of the connection of Stonehenge with the megaliths of Madagascar as if they were written in stone. Does he believe that it's a bad analogy, or does he personally not see a worthwhile connection?

To sum up, I believe that analogies are not only interesting to consider, but also extremely important in highlighting possible behavioral patterns. However, in order to make an analogy between two cultural practices, context must be kept in mind; similar practices can evolve from entirely different thought processes. Also I thought I would mention in my sifting through information on the web about Stonehenge I stumbled upon this site. It seems that the Stonehenge Riverside Project and Prof. Mike Parker Pearson have moved onto a new theory that Stonehenge was built as a means of unification.