[Aztlan] Interesting glyphs in Ruinas El Rey, Cancun

[David Hixson]

Dear Jules and fellow listeros,
   
  Miguel's comment that this stone may be considered "vandalism" of an archaeological site could be very valid.  The stone in question is an "addition" to the archaeological zone, one that is not explained nor signed.  Tourists who visit the site will no doubt be confused and believe that they are viewing a part of ancient Maya history.  In my many visits to El Rey, no one ever pointed out that this is a "fake" monument (it would only be clear to a specialist).
   
  This is similar to a movement that is going on in both the public and private sector in Yucatan and Quintana Roo.
   
  For example, small villages in Quintana Roo are making and/or buying replica monuments to "augment" their archaeological zones, telling tourists that they are genuine ancient Maya monuments, and hoping this will attract more paying tourists to their lands.  I have photos of Yaxchilan replicas being explained to visitors as newly discovered monuments at minor sites in Q. Roo.  These, of course, are poor private land holders trying to improve their local economy, so I must admit that there could be some sympathy for this effort as they compete for tourist dollars with mega-sites and well-connected eco-tourism companies.
   
  However, INAH has similarly authorized reconstructions within major archaeological sites that are essentially artistic reconstructions of architecture (taking buildings that we only know from foundation stones - and rebuilding them using fresh new stones or concrete, all the way up to the capstones).  [See the article in Arqueologia Mexicana regarding the quadrangle behind the Adivino pyramid at Uxmal as an excellent example].  Such reconstructions are fanciful at best, and detrimental to culture history at its worst.
   
  Possibly the most flagrant example of such "vandalism" is seen in the world of art collectors, who have taken genuine polychrome vessels and "filled in" any missing or faded artwork with their own renditions of glyphs, kings and deities.  Often these additions to ancient pieces of art are indistinguishable to the untrained eye and may be used in scholarly works without knowledge that the artistry in question is in fact fake.
   
  Allowing, promoting, or publishing fake monuments, ceramics or buildings, without proper text explaining the difference between genuine data and fanciful reconstructions, not only robs the tourist or scholar of a truly educational experience but also robs the modern Maya of a genuine history of their culture.  Hence, the term "vandalism" truly might apply.
   
  However, I would still be curious to see how those folks at El Rey explain why that "nouveau" monument is displayed at the site.  So thanks for investigating, Jules.
   
  -Dave

Jules Siegel <jules at cafecancun.com> wrote:
  Miguel Covarrubias wrote:
> You can call it vandalism instead.
Why? I think we can suspend judgment until Anita investigates further.
 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com