On a tour I’m on, we visited a temple to the Mayan sun god at Altun Ha in Belize. The temple had much renovation done to make it presentable, and a stone stairway was erected to the top. Those of us who were adventurous and zest-full enough to climb up were permitted to do so.
The top was flat with a round altar. I even placed some leaves on the altar as a sort of offering - these were allspice leaves the tour guides gave us to smell. Unlike what I noticed on my Egypt cruise many years back, people were playing, sitting, standing, grouping on the altar like it was built by the Mayans for their family photographic opportunity. I was shocked, and even a bit angered. But considering the Belizean government has more on their hands than the desecration of ancient sites of worship, I just commented to my family.
Am I the only one who believes that ancient sites of worship should be respected, even though the site is no longer in use for the purpose it was erected? I recall that in Egypt there was an unspoken respect given in temples. People didn’t play around the holy of holies (actually, no one even entered the small room), no one horsed around the altar. People were respectful, in awe. That’s what should remain, even at a half-excavated Mayan site without enough money to excavate the rest. It’s a matter of respecting another people’s sense of the sacred.
I find it very strange to have this attitude about a culture and religion that no longer exists. The Romans believes that every river was inhabited by a God - should I try to find a way to be ‘respectful’ of that? The only reason I behave in any way other than usual when in a place of worship is for my (qualified) respect for believers. The building itself has no relevance. Hell, in my nearest large town, there’s churches housing everything from the Tourist Information office to a model railway club. And one is being opened up specially for a performance of Macbeth. Is any of that disrespectful?
My only concern is that the place is not damaged and preserved for the ages. If there’s no people left who actually follow the religion, then to me it’s just a historical tourist attraction, to be treated with no more or less respect than a secular historical site.
Hell, I don’t have much respect for contemporary sites of worship. So long as they aren’t damaging the site or disturbing other tourists, let them do what they want. Much like the Gods they built the temple to, the people who once worshipped there no longer exsist, and as such, cannot take offence to the irreverence of modern day visitors.
Hm. I don’t think ordinary tourist activities (taking photographs, etc.) are out of place at what is, in the end, being marketed as a tourist attraction. But there are limits of good taste; I wouldn’t think it’s very appropriate to moon someone from the Parthenon, for example. I think most of the good manners should be centred not so much around the place’s former use, as trying not to disturb others who are also trying to absorb this place’s culture. In this regard, historical site manners are very similar to museum manners.
And naturally, if it should be a religious site that is in current use – no matter how old or well-touristed – one should respect any worship that may be taking place. I love to visit old churches, but (for example) I keep my voice down, and I try to dress in a non-sloppy fashion, and I avoid disturbing anyone who is praying. That’s just good manners.
On some of the ancient Greek ruin sites, the guards won’t let you take any photos of people in front of the rubble. Olympia is the place I really noticed this, since we were the only people there in Novemeber and the guard was stalking us.
