So, on Friday Erin gave us a hand out where on the one side there was Ramilisonina (who worked with  Michael Parker Pearson to develop a new possible understanding of Stonehenge) in an interview being asked about the similarities between megaliths in Madagascar in comparison to Stonehenge (and the other related sites like Woodhenge and now "Bluestonehenge"). On the other side, there was a critical response by blogger Luciano Aimar speaking to this analogy that Ramilisonina and Michael Parker Pearson have made.

I didn't have as strong of a reaction to Pearson's ideas as Aimar did. I didn't have an issue with the analogy because honestly, if we knew the answers to what Stonehenge meant to the people who created it, we wouldn't have to make these analogies in the first place. It ultimately doesn't matter where the analogies originated from because they are there to shed light on different ways of seeing similar physical phenomenon as reflected in the archaeological record.  I don't believe that Pearson or Ramilisonina necessarily suggested a universality about ancestor stones; I think they were trying to give an analogy for unexplained phenomena by way of a contemporary living tradition resulting in similar material finds. What I do think we should still be cautious about is in speaking authoritatively regarding such analogies. For example,  Ramilisonina on the purpose of Stonehenge: "It was a sacred place where people came to make contact with the creator gods and the spirits of their ancestors." Was it? The way he's speaking suggest he knows that's what Stonehenge was created for, but it is just a hypothesis and I think that's where the line needs to be drawn until further evidence is found that can support, or reject such hypotheses. After all, isn't that the function of the scientific method?