And now to relay those thoughts with the blog prompt for the week. I reviewed the interview of Ramilisonina, a native born archaeologist from Madagascar, lead by Richard Covington. Ramilisonina believes there is a significant link between Stonehenge and practices in his own culture. He superimposes burial rituals and rock formation arrangements from his own culture onto the arrangements as seen at Stonehenge, Bluestonehenge, and Woodhenge and concludes that they must hold the same purpose and meaning. This is all fine and dandy for just a simple man trying to make his way in this world, but for an archaeologist it seems like somebody's just grasping at straws. There is no real proof that such a linkage makes any sense. It's like saying octopi and humans are, like, totes the same because we both have an optic, complex eye. But with even less substantiating proof. In this instance, we have more proof to link Mr. Octopus and Ramilisonina (assuming he is capable of sight) than we do to link Stonehenge and Malagasy ancestor stone formations. I guess this is more like saying a bowl and a hat are the same in all aspects including purpose because they are both half-spherical. Of course this is the means by which we explore our surroundings and what things are new to us, so I applaud the man for making the connection. Gotta love me some ethnology! I simply think he needs to explore the idea much, much further before he makes such huge leaps in logic. During the interview he begins with "could", "might", and "seems to" which are safe words for careful comparisons. He stretches this a bit when he suggests there's "a similar element of magic" shared across both places. My bone to pick is that he finishes the interview with "the way they are erected varies, but they are always connected to the dead, our ancestors, and invisible spirits, just as at Stonehenge." WHAT?! This is not fact. Treating this supposition as fact is a dangerous thing to do for an archaeologist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a preconceived notion that all archaeologists must also be scientists, that is, they must offer theories with the knowledge that no theory can be entirely proven such that it becomes fact. And if the theory of evolution must play by those rules, so should your ancestor stone theories, Ramilisonina, sir.
King Julien and Maurice just making some (false?) assumptions. And poor Mort! He's SO impressionable.
My personal opinion aside, here is what I think of his theory:
After doing some internet sleuthing (aka Wikipedia..ing) I determined that human occupation in Madagascar is currently assumed to be around 350 BC-550 AD. It is believed that Stonehenge was built between 3000BC-2000BC. So let's just make it simple and say that Stonehenge was at least 2000 years old when Madagascar was first occupied by humans. So Stonehenge would be the chicken before the little Madagascar egg (or if you think the egg came first, Stonehenge would be the egg). And those humans occupying Madagascar first were from Borneo. Not Britain. Granted I am not an expert on the history of Madagascar, or Britain for that matter. But I would still hazard to guess that there's limited cross-culturalization between the UK druids and modern day Malagasy people.
Cool idea, but not the most parsimonious explanation. There are many other theories surrounding the mystery that is Stonehenge; I guess go ahead and add this one to the pile.
