The hand out we read for class was an excellent example of opposing ideas in any interdisciplinary. Before I made any conclusions about what both of these opinions that were made, I wanted to find out more about the individual person to have an understanding here they are coming from and what give them the authoritative power to speak on this subject.
Luciano Aimar is first and forth-most a dancer, "dance is the only work I have ever done. This is my passion, my love, my life and also what I know and do best(Aimar, A bridge of Roses). He began his own charity to ensure that children got a better education in Madagascar (has no since left the organization) and has spent some time among the Malagasy.
Ramilisonina on the other hand is a native of Madagascar and grew up with many of the traditions that are practiced. He studies mostly Madagascar archaeology from the 15th and 19th century and also is known for his work on European megaliths.
Knowing where these two come from, and their backgrounds help to shed some little on the critique that was written by Mr. Aimar. He seems to think that Ramilisonina is wrong to associate burial rituals that are traditional among the Malagasy but from what I look up and read from his own words was the fact that he only had the word from one person, who is himself an outsider in Madagascar and therefore may not have been given the entire facts about the traditions that he was privy to
Sure, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion on something but to base that opinion on few facts and a small amount of knowledge, whether it be second hand or first had accounts, is not going to win over any hearts. I think more discussion and time to understand why Ramilisonian and Mike Parker Pearson believe there is any connection between Stonehenge and Madagascar burial traditions is the only way to keep research continuing and questions being answered.
Why can't it be true to say that Malagasy people took some of there rituals from ancient people and that those traditions can be seen in the archaeological record present at places like Bluestonehenge. I think that if I had to choose to believe one person more so over the other, I could and would not because I myself have only been privy to a small portion of the larger picture that is being discussed.
I think part of the problem is with the idea of analogy. Using analogies to understand the past doesn't actually require a connection of any sort between the two groups of people. Rather, it's like looking at how modern people use a comb and what they use it for, looking at an object from the past that looks like a comb, and then suggesting that it may have served a similar purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe question that arises for me is what limits may exist in the use of analogy? Can analogy tell us about worldviews and beliefs, for instance?