A Leap Too Far?

Its blog time once again (please bear with me as I work out an intro).

During lecture on Friday Dr. Erin McGuire challenged us to read and reflect on an interview with Malagasy anthropoligst Ramilisonina (a colleague of Mike Parker Pearson) (http://www.archaeology.org/1001/etc/conversation.html).

The interviewer questioned Ramilisonina about the possible connections between Stonehenge and its associated structures and the megaliths of Madagascar. Put simply Ramilisonina believes that there is a connection between the megaliths of Neolithic-Bronze Age Britain and the much more modern stones in Madagascar. When asked about how he came draw a connection between the modern and ancient megaliths Ramilisonina responds the he could see a "similar element of magic" in the structures of Britain and Madagascar. Ramilisonina also states that in Madagascar, stone is used exclusively for the dead and wood for the living. He then goes on to suggest that there may be a similar relationship in the stone structures of Stonehenge and Blue Stone Henge and the nearby wooden structure creatively dubbed Woodhenge.

http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_239.php

We were also given a critical response to this interview, "Sacred Stones and Madagascar", that was posted on a blog by Luciano Aimar (http://lucianoaimar.blogspot.com). This response attacks the validity of taking the meaning and symbolism from the Madagascar stones and ascribing it to the British megaliths. Aimar takes particular umbrage with the idea of stone monuments as a bridge between the world of the living and the "Domain of the Dead".

Though Aimar is critiquing an isolated, case study his arguments got me thinking about the validity of ethnoarchaeology in general. What is it that makes an archaeologist think they can ever presume to ascribe meaning to a monument or artifact when anyone that may have ever known the real meaning behind it has been dead for thousands of years? Is it arrogance? Hubris? Pride? Or perhaps they (or should I say we?) are simply overwhelmed by the crushing ambiguity and uncertainty that makes up the bulk of archaeological enquiry. Regardless of motivation no archaeologist can ever "know" the meaning behind an artifact, they can only ever guess. But guessing is not a bad thing, especially when it is educated and informed through appropriate analogies.

Ethnoarchaeology is a field focused on analogy but there is a substantial difference between an illustrative analogy and a comparative analogy. An illustrative analogy draws a one to one connection between artifacts or cultures. It copies the meaning from one artifact and pastes it to another.

Comparative analogies on the other hand are just like the sound, they are comparisons. They look at the similarities and differences between artifacts and draw hypothetical connections between them while still allowing for the fact that no two cultures are ever exactly the same.

Aimar sees an illustrative analogy where there isn't one and is justifiably sceptical about the validity of the connection. However, Ramilisonina only remarks on the similarities between the practices at Stonehenge and those in Madagascar saying "The bodies might have been cremated at the site and [Bluestonehenge] then taken to Stonehenge for burial. We see the same sort of practice today in Madagascar." Aimar takes this as an "anthropological leap too far."

Is it? I don't think so.

Of course I am not saying that the practices were exactly the same and we can never know one way or another without a time travel. While we wait for time machines to be invented (and heres hoping we won't have to wait long) we must be satisfy ourselves with interesting theories like those put forward by Ramilisonina and Mike Parker Pearson.

I fear I have rambled a bit. I am new to this whole blogging and I am still trying adjust to the format.  Let me finish with this. When ever we try to find meaning in an ancient artifact we open ourselves up criticism, but what is the alternative? Without analogy and informed hypotheses we would be left with mere description and that would make for a very dry and uninteresting field with no chance for advancement. We need to make leaps but through the scope of comparative analogy not illustrative. We have to put our egos aside and accept and appreciate the criticism. It is all to easy to go too far but if we set our egos aside we can more easily make ammends and further advance our knowledge and understanding of the past.