[Aztlan] Fake monuments and accurate reproductions?

[ECOLING at aol.com]

There's another side to the matter of fake monuments.

In the past, authentic monuments discovered in various sites were
almost always transferred to the national museums of various countries
(Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, and others).   This is a factor in local sites 
wanting
their piece of the action and feeling that they had been treated unfairly.

There could have been some justification for this in the past, for 
protection,
and so those who cared about archaeology might have access to the 
monuments without long and difficult journeys.

However, the situation is changing in several respects.
Recently, a number of "community museums" "museos comunitarios"
have been established, and original monuments are more often being left
in their original sites.   This has legitimate benefits along with some 
increased risk of theft, if protection is not as strong and is dispersed to
so many locations.

More important I think, we now have the capability of producing 
museum-quality replicas, of stelas, of portable stone and jade objects, etc.
High quality replicas (and I mean *high* quality, not sloppy knock-offs)
can be placed in the original landscapes when those have not been built over
by human sprawl.   Protection against acid rain almost requires some 
transfer of originals to protected locations, and in Copan, for example,
this is to the local museum, so the issue is clearly not one of local vs. 
national.

So solutions to "fake" monuments and to the goal of tourist dollars
which are fairest to all concerned may require 
that high quality replicas be placed in the original locations,
or at least in the original communities from which they come.
This would also be highly educational.   

Further thoughts on various pros and cons?

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683



**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com