My dictionary defines 'replica' as a copy [of an object]. So unless this monastery is a copy of another monastery (and according to what I read it's not) it's not replica. Not being a copy, it's absolutely a new thing as much as a blues song written yesterday, in spite of blues not being new thing.
I literally quoted above the definition of the word. I'd rather not re-define it for a HN thread because it's clearly among the worst ways to conduct any discussion. On top of that even your 'copy' is not what it conventionally means. And there's a reason for that. Your
personal definition simply isn't productive. It leaves no space for category, style, tradition. Even you yourself would be 'fake' if your definition is true. You know, humans like you definitely existed before you.
