Ethnography, Ethnoarchaeology, and Analogy

Boy is that a mouthful!  These three concepts (ethnography, ethnoarchaeology, and analogy) seem to be at the forefront of the methods applied to the research of burial rituals, which is understandable considering the lack of living evidence archaeologists have to work with in this field!  Ethnography is the creation of a rich description of a community or culture which has been produced throughout a prolonged stay with such a community.  Ethnoarchaeology uses ethnographies and physical remains for the comparison between different cultures in order to create hypotheses about cultures we cannot research ethnographically today.  In my Archaeology of Death class this week, we were asked to critically comment on analogies made by Ramilisonina and Mike Pearson who produced research relating the burial practices seen at Stonehenge, Woodhenge and Bluestonehenge in England with Ramilisonina's native Madagascar megaliths.  The interview link is posted below.

www.archaeology.org/1001/etc/conversation.html     

Drawing analogies in archaeological research is a tricky thing to do, especially since archaeologists may be cursed with a lack of hard evidence.  Rimilisonina and Pearson's research may make some squirm in that they are trying to tie the knot between two vastly distinct places and time frames.  However, I feel that their notion makes an important point: we are all human, therefore, there is a chance in reproducing the same ideological practices.  Yet again, with that said... I think that Rimilisonina and Pearson are making quite a large jump without providing any substantial evidence linking the two sites further.  A link to the critique of Rimilisonina and Pearson's methodology outlined in "B"'s blog is provided below.   

http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.ca/2010/11/sacred-stones-and-madagascar.html

I have to be honest here, I am torn.  I think that it is definitely archaeology's duty to provide hypotheses to explain the odd phenomena on this planet we call Earth, but (and this is a big "but" for me) I think that if archaeology wants to be considered a "real" science, its scientists must be gathering physical evidence and data to falsify hypotheses, thus putting these hypothetical hypotheses to work.  Otherwise it seems to be a waste of time, hard training, and intellect.  Analogies are great, BUT they need to be tested.

Lastly, I would like to conclude with bringing in the idea of ethnography since one cannot have ethnoarchaeology without ethnography!  I am currently reading an ethnography by Andrew Walsh called "Made in Madagascar: Sapphires, Ecotourism, and the Global Bazaar" which is a detailed account of how sapphire miners make a living in Ankarana, Madagascar.  It is interesting to note that digging into stone is an essential step in mining sapphires, something that by Rimilisonina and Pearson's research would deem wrong, since "stone in Madagascar is really for sacred purposes" (www.archaeology.org/1001/etc/conversation.html). Perhaps more recent ethnographic research needs to be done?  Also, I find it hard to use an analogy as an archaeological method since it heavily relies on ethnoarchaeology, and ethnoarchaeology relies on the use of ethnography.  It is virtually impossible to have a written ethnography on the people who built Stonehenge, Woodhenge and Bluestonehenge.  Therefore, I think that the analogy that Rimilisonina and Pearson's notion may skew our knowledge of each, individual culture, leading academics and the public down a misinterpreted path.

This is a photo of a cave entrance in Ankarana, Madagascar.  Malagsy people would go into these caves to converse with their ancestors by drawing out very precise rituals (Walsh, 2012).
Attributed to: Rhett A. Butler, taken from http://travel.mongabay.com/madagascar/images/madagascar_3957.html