reproduction – even reproductions have a maker (Thompson 2018) – are also crucial details in discussions of technological (de)colonization. Stobiecka’s examination could benefit from a closer look at agency that comes from a deeper involvement with the artefact’s itineraries. A focus on itineraries considers that objects have ‘no real beginning other than where we enter them and no end since things and their extensions continue to move’ (Joyce and Gillespie 2015, 3). There is no doubt that the trajectory and influence of Palmyra extend historically far beyond the borders of Syria, but the carefully crafted circulation of a replica that claims to represent Syrian interests today must confront specific concerns with the ethics of representation in contemporary heritage studies. First, the destruction narrative that is represented in the reproduction of the arch is not representative of the widespread destruction of diverse cultural sites that took place across Syria during this rampage (Mulder 2016). Likewise, the representational form of the arch cites a very selective period for this monument, which includes being used as a mosque and a church at different moments in its life history (Mulder 2020). Second, the visible rejection of Syrian refugees across many European countries, contemporary with the free circulation and consumption of the replica, undermines efforts to construct a global discourse that addresses the human scale of the Syrian conflict (Cunliffe 2016; Thompson 2017). Third, the apparent applause that this replica has received across the world evokes the strong rejection of the reproduction of the Ishtar Gate in Babylon, Iraq, which was disassembled through excavation to be reassembled in Berlin in the 1930s. A scaled replica, built in Babylon by Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s, has been used as a textbook example of heritage inauthenticity and politically motivated deceit. Destruction, and its presumed resolution through digital reproduction, continue to be politically motivated. Stobiecka’s article offers important debates that invite us to revisit what it means to ‘save heritage’ in the 21st century. Her discussions also act as a reminder that heritage debates that fall under a ‘heritage-at-risk’ rhetoric enable less critical examinations of the means and purposes of representation (Rico 2015). Therefore calling for decolonizing practices in heritage preservation must revolve around an exploration of the channels of authority and expertise that give shape to specific safeguarding narratives, rather than focus on repackaging preservation strategies under new codifications and techniques that result in the same colonizing process of heritagization nonetheless.

中文翻译：

---

劫持伊斯兰国。数字帝国主义和打捞政治

复制——即使是复制品也有制造者（Thompson 2018）——也是讨论技术（去）殖民化的关键细节。Stobiecka 的检查可能会受益于更深入地参与人工制品行程的机构。对路线的关注认为对象“除了我们进入它们的地方之外没有真正的开始，也没有结束，因为事物及其扩展继续移动”（Joyce and Gillespie 2015, 3）。毫无疑问，巴尔米拉的轨迹和影响在历史上远远超出了叙利亚的边界，但精心制作的、声称代表当今叙利亚利益的复制品的流通必须面对当代遗产研究中代表伦理的具体问题。第一的，拱门再现中所代表的破坏叙述并不代表在这次横冲直撞期间叙利亚各地发生的各种文化遗址的广泛破坏（Mulder 2016）。同样，拱门的表现形式为这座纪念碑引用了一个非常有选择性的时期，其中包括在其生命历史的不同时刻被用作清真寺和教堂（Mulder 2020）。其次，许多欧洲国家对叙利亚难民的明显拒绝，与复制品的自由流通和消费同时存在，破坏了构建解决叙利亚冲突的人类规模的全球话语的努力（Cunliffe 2016; Thompson 2017）。第三，这个复制品在世界范围内获得的明显掌声引起了对伊拉克巴比伦伊什塔尔门的复制的强烈拒绝，该门在 1930 年代通过挖掘被拆卸，然后在柏林重新组装。萨达姆侯赛因政权于 1980 年代在巴比伦建造的按比例复制的复制品已被用作遗产不真实和出于政治动机的欺骗的教科书示例。破坏及其通过数字复制的假定解决方案，继续具有政治动机。Stobiecka 的文章提供了重要的辩论，邀请我们重新审视 21 世纪“拯救遗产”的意义。她的讨论还提醒人们，属于“风险遗产”言论的遗产辩论可以对代表的手段和目的进行不太严格的审查（Rico 2015）。