[Aztlan] Fake monuments and accurate reproductions?

[David Hixson]

Dear Lloyd,
   
  There is a difference between "replica monuments" and "fake monuments"...
   
  The "monument" from El Rey, Cancun, is a complete fake.  It is a stone with random bar-and-dot notations (and the "shell glyph" for zero).  The reading order is incorrect, the format is bogus, and the glyphs themselves are not standard for Maya monuments.  It is truly a "fake" monument.  Whether it was intended for education (doubtful) or simply to add an item for the guides to explain (more likely), it is regardless a fake.
   
  This is different than a "replica" monument, which can be put in place for educational purposes while saving the original monument from destruction (due to weather, theft or vandalism).
   
  If anyone is ever at Uxmal and walks through the ballcourt, there is a sign that says "don't touch" the ball court ring.  This is because it is plastic.
   
  Such accurate replicas do not take away from the standard tourist view of the site, and honestly protect the original items from the hoards of visitors that might want to touch the stones 365 days a year (thus eroding the original glyphs carved upon the monument).
   
  Just note the recent accounts from Chichen Itza regarding how many monuments (even architectural monuments) that need to be roped-off from visitors due to the constant treading of thier feet and hands upon ancient structures and monuments.  Replicas are therefore highly valuable.
   
  But truly "fake" monuments, fanciful reconstructions of buildings and augmented ceramics should be discouraged from entering the public domain without full disclosure (as our list member Justin Kerr has graciously provided in his Maya Vase books regarding possible augmentations of polychrome vases).
   
  -Dave

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com