This post is in response to the suggestion posed by Mike Parker Pearson and his colleague, Ramilisonina, and the blogger reply to their proposition that one could look at the use of stone monuments inn Madagascar to create an understanding of Stonehenge and similar structures found in the area dating to the Neolithic period. In response, the blogger expressed his disagreement with this type of methodology, accusing Parker Pearson of making claims "that there is some sort of universality to the belief system involving 'ancestor stones'" and of creating too fanciful and interpretation of Stonehenge based on irrelevant evidence.
I think perhaps the responding blogger is misunderstanding the purpose of such comparative work that seeks to examine belief systems of other cultures in order to better understand behaviors in the distant past. It does not seem to me that Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina or arguing for some direct connection between the two cultures' belief systems and their use of rock formations, but rather attempting to create a wider of understanding of possible uses for stone beyond the simple idea of secular construction. In order to prevent our own culturally biased assumptions about the purpose of construction monuments, Parker Pearson thought it was valuable to explore different uses of stone in different parts of the world, and he found the uses in Madagascar to be especially intriguing. He is not suggesting that he has discovered the purpose for Stonehenge, but has looked at similar behaviors in a different cultural and temporal context and suggested that there may be a similar reasoning behind them.
I also question the source that the blogger utilizes; although he of course is not writing an academic piece of any sort, one must take into account that his source of knowledge about the people he is discussing is a "good friend" who visited the region for missionary work. This friend has their own biases, their own motivations for their visit, and their own agenda, whether conscious or not, concerning how he interprets his observations. So it seems inappropriate to use this type of source as evidence against a scholar who has done academic work in this field, not to say that the missionary was incorrect in his observations or not capable of objective understanding of the Madagascar people. But one must consider the value of one's sources before making use of them in an argument against another's evidence.
While I do agree that there is no direct correlation between the Madagascar practices and the construction of Stonehenge, I do believe there is some value in this cross cultural comparison in order to broaden our range of possibilities for the motives behind this behavior. There is no evidence to disprove this possible explanation, nor is there any evidence to identify it as the ultimate truth. This is just one more possible reason for the construction of the site that we can consider, and perhaps never completely be able to affirm as accurate.
I think perhaps the responding blogger is misunderstanding the purpose of such comparative work that seeks to examine belief systems of other cultures in order to better understand behaviors in the distant past. It does not seem to me that Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina or arguing for some direct connection between the two cultures' belief systems and their use of rock formations, but rather attempting to create a wider of understanding of possible uses for stone beyond the simple idea of secular construction. In order to prevent our own culturally biased assumptions about the purpose of construction monuments, Parker Pearson thought it was valuable to explore different uses of stone in different parts of the world, and he found the uses in Madagascar to be especially intriguing. He is not suggesting that he has discovered the purpose for Stonehenge, but has looked at similar behaviors in a different cultural and temporal context and suggested that there may be a similar reasoning behind them.
I also question the source that the blogger utilizes; although he of course is not writing an academic piece of any sort, one must take into account that his source of knowledge about the people he is discussing is a "good friend" who visited the region for missionary work. This friend has their own biases, their own motivations for their visit, and their own agenda, whether conscious or not, concerning how he interprets his observations. So it seems inappropriate to use this type of source as evidence against a scholar who has done academic work in this field, not to say that the missionary was incorrect in his observations or not capable of objective understanding of the Madagascar people. But one must consider the value of one's sources before making use of them in an argument against another's evidence.
While I do agree that there is no direct correlation between the Madagascar practices and the construction of Stonehenge, I do believe there is some value in this cross cultural comparison in order to broaden our range of possibilities for the motives behind this behavior. There is no evidence to disprove this possible explanation, nor is there any evidence to identify it as the ultimate truth. This is just one more possible reason for the construction of the site that we can consider, and perhaps never completely be able to affirm as accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment