[Aztlan] "Teotihuacan In Danger"

[Matthew H. Robb]

I was at the site in late December and was absolutely appalled at what I saw. Bright pink cords running all around both the Pyramid of the Sun and Moon, light boxes on the Pyramid of the Sun visible from the Rio San Juan - we should all keep track of our pre-2008 photos.  You will not want to show students photos of these structures with light tracks running around the terraces. I would happily share my pictures. 

I also think I must protest the dismissal of criticisms of 'Resplendor Teotihuacan' as mere products of the 'yellow' press, some sort of 'fake' controversy designed to sell newspapers. Reading through the articles on La Jornada, I see quotes from Ruben Cabrera and Sergio Gomez - scholars and archaeologists who have worked at the site for many years who are expressing serious concerns about the impact this 'espactaculo' will have. 

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/01/09/index.php?section=cultura&article=a04n1cul

That said, as Jorge rightly points out, I know that these  disputes play out in the press with other agendas in the background. I also completely agree with Kim that people need to work and the site is an economic resource in some fundamental ways, and that giving people something to do to keep them from getting back on the bus is entirely appropriate. I think the reaction the 'Wal-Mart' built a few years back was completely overblown and had very little do to with preservation concerns. 

My reaction to the current situation is mixed. I have no objection to sonido y luz in principle - in fact I make a point of seeing them when I can, and I will gleefully confess I managed to find a record of the 'first' sonido y luz at Teo. I do think it's appropriate to think about ways to make the site more appealing so that people stay longer and spend more money. Also, it's hard for me to think that the lights themselves are particularly damaging - they just look bad. We all make a point of saying "well, Batres mis-reconstructed the Pyramid of the Sun" - so we can hardly object to someone harming a bad restoration, right? 

This isn't what I object to. I object to creeping commercialism - what is next on this slippery slope? And I object to what seems to me to be an imposition of state concerns (and the political career of governor Nieto) over preservation concerns. If INAH and the ZAT were proposing this internally it would be much less of an issue. Why didn't they just rehab the 'old' light boxes that are still in place along the Street of the Dead? Who actually decided that any of this was necessary? I think these are fair questions. Any of us who have been to Chichen or Palenque know that there are a lot more vendors inside than there were 10 or 15 years ago. I understand that people have to make a living and that tourism is an economic engine. But there has to be some sort of balance, or there won't be anything left for tourists to see in 50 years. 

Both Teotihuacan and all the people who work to preserve it are under enormous pressures. I shudder to think of something happening as happened at Parque La Venta, and it easily could in spaces as heavily trafficked as Quetzalpapalotl or even more so at the sparsely visited Tetitla. We need more vigilance and discussion about how these sites and monuments are taken care of for the long term, not less.  


mis dos centavos, 

Matthew H. Robb



________________________________
From: Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl at estudioelias.com>
To: Aztlan <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:42:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] "Teotihuacan In Danger"

I am not a fan of "light and sound" shows, but Kim Goldsmith's  
arguments do sound solid. To try and answer Diego's questions:

1. Why have some INAH employees protested?

Having lived all my life in Mexico and dealt with government employees  
throughout my adult life (yes, including INAH employees) I can say  
that, regarding public protests, very seldom are things what they seem  
and most "protests" are almost always motivated by factors that have  
little to do with their stated "cause". I state it for a fact, but my  
inner cynic would suggest that the INAH employees that are protesting  
are really after something entirely different than the welfare of the  
ancient site.

2. Are bolt anchors lightly intrusive?

Hard to say without having seen them, but Kim has and appears to think  
so.

3. TELEVISA is not part of the "amarillista" press.

Really?  I would like to be convinced otherwise. In my experience,  
scandal = controversy = higher ratings.

I myself would pay a lot more attention to the fact that ICOMOS  
(UNESCO) has voiced its concern. It would make sense to develop a  
project that will pass muster with them. After all, Teotihuacan is one  
of UNESCO's "Patrimony of Mankind" sites. It makes sense to adhere to  
their standards.

My 2 cents.

Jorge


On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:15 PM, diegoc2000 at yahoo.com wrote:

> But then why some employees from the INAH have protested?
> Bolt anchors are lightly intrusive?
> I am not fan of AMARILLISTA press, but Televisa is not on that line.
> Sorry, I do not mean to cause controversy, just to understand.
>
_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php