In class, Erin gave us a handout of a short interview with archaeologist Ramilisonina and a somewhat harsh blog reply by blogger Luciano Aimar. Aimar's issue with Ramilisonina seems to be his analogy of Madagascar's megaliths with Stonehenge and Bluehenge. I agree in part with Aimar, although I thought his response veered a little on the rude side (especially if you scroll down on the link Erin gave us and read the comments back and forth...he gets even meaner). I disagree with Ramilisonina and Pearson's stance that there is an affinity with Madagascar's megaliths. I think there is a similarity in material, certainly...but not much more than that. My biggest problem with the analogy is Ramilisonina stating that the two share a "similiar element of magic"; he says this with absolutely no followup about what he means. This statement is far too subjective for an archaeological comparison. I understand his sentiment about the "magic" as I've been to Stonehenge myself and it's pretty awesome, but archaeology is a scientific pursuit. Also, stating that Stonehenge was a place to commune with the gods is a pretty definitive statement for a site that (as far as I know) has no written records explaining its purpose, and no solid clues to its purpose at the site itself. Its totally ok to have a hypothesis, but when you state your hypothesis as a fact you cross over into pseudoscience. In sum, IMO the analogy only goes as far as likeness in material (and the positioning of the material).
No comments:
Post a Comment