The linkage of the apparently disparate sites of Oaxaca and Monte Alban in a single inscription is unusual. Each place certainly has its merits compared with others on the List; Oaxaca is as good as many other colonial towns and Monte Alban as good as many other pre-Hispanic sites. Neither is perhaps is the very “best of the best” but each should surely have been able to “hold its own” in a single inscription, given the ICOMOS/ UNESCO record for interpreting “Universal Value”? So what is the significance of Mexico linking the 2 sites in this way? 1987 was, by the way, a “great year” for Mexico in that it got 6 sites inscribed (this can’t happen again now that yearly nomination limits have been imposed). Interestingly it also proposed another linked “colonial/pre-Hispanic site” – Puebla and Cholula but, on this occasion, Cholula was rejected as not being “significant” enough in its own right.

One possibility for the dual nomination was as a device to get more sites inscribed! But I think it is more than this. Every country’s Inscribed (and Tentative) List says quite a lot about how it sees itself and wants to present itself to the outside world (Think Netherlands and its “fight against the waters”, think UK and its industrial/trading history etc). Mexico is proud of its “fusion culture” and a number of its WHS emphasise this aspect. Queretario’s (see my review) nomination documentation describes it as “an exceptional example of a Spanish town whose layout symbolizes its multi ethnic population” and as “foreshadowing the bicultural Mexico of today and the emergence of an ideal form of coexistence in the new world”! In the shorter Nominations of earlier years that of Oaxaca/Monte Alban isn’t quite so “up front” but contains the phrase “This nomination is deliberately diachronic, playing on the historical complementarity of these properties”.

But Monte Alban is totally pre-Hispanic. It doesn’t even have the “church built on a pyramid” of Cholula and many other sites across Mexico. The site was a major ceremonial center for the Zapotecs (mainly 9th/10th centuries) and Mixtecs (11th century onwards). 9kms down the hill (and still separated by some open countryside) is Oaxaca. The valley in which it stands was full of Zapotec villages at the time of the Conquest but, although the city was built on the site of a small outreach Aztec garrison (the Aztecs never conquered the Zapotecs) it is, in design and physical content, totally Spanish (unlike Queretaro which claims a partial pre-Hispanic layout). It is however significantly Zapotec etc in population and culture and it is THAT linkage which the Mexican government has tried to emphasise by this dual inscription. Whether it is justified/works is another matter.

We found it interesting to note that the expanatory signs inside Monte Alban were in 3 languages – Spanish, English and Nahuatl. We did however ask a few (non local?) Mexicans what language the latter was and received the guesses “Frances” and “Alaman”! It would appear that Mexicans as a whole are not too knowledgeable about their own indigenous peoples and languages!

When we visited in Mar 2008, Oaxaca seemed, on the surface, to have put behind it the bloody riots of late 2006; the town was full of tourists around the lively Zocalo and the restaurants were busy. However, those events are relevant to the dual inscription. Starting with protests by teachers, they tapped into deep seated discontents which had and still have a significant indigenous dimension. The “Popular Assembly of Oaxaca” which emerged as the umbrella group coordinating the protests claims to look to indigenous political practices for its inspiration. To understand Oaxaca and the surrounding countryside you need to understand the indigenous peoples, their history and their sense of being wronged- in the past and today. High above Oaxaca, Monte Alban stands as a symbol of their greatest period! But the truly “Bicultural Mexico of today” and the “Ideal form of coexistance” do not yet seem to have arrived.

And, if you do visit both? Well, despite its traffic, Oaxaca is a pleasant city to explore and to relax in, though perhaps its general colonial atmosphere is of greater worth than that of individual buildings. The fine 16th century Convent Church of Santo Domingo (photo 1) is the location of the UNESCO sign. The convent garden has been turned into a botanical garden of indigenous plants but, annoyingly, can only be visited as part of a group tour. The Santa Catalena Monastery has been very attractively turned into another Camino Real hotel – it is worth a wander even if you don’t stay there! Monte Alban will cost you 48 pesos and will take 2-3 hours to visit once you are there. The famous “Dancer” carvings have been removed to the museum (which, in common with all those we saw beyond The National Museum of Anthropology, offers no information for non Spanish speakers) and replaced on site with replicas. There are fine views both of the site and the surrounding countryside from the high points around the Great Plaza (photo 2). To the uninitiated, the views of pyramids and ball courts etc won’t differ greatly from those you may have seen or will see at other sites such a Xochicalco – but it still worth a visit if you are in Oaxaca.