 |
FAMSI © 2005: Carlos Rudy Larios Villalta |
|
Architectural Restoration Criteria in the Maya Area Tikal In August, 1967, I had the privilege of drawing 50% of an extraordinary frieze (Figure 3), which was protected by a thin plate roof. In fact, while I was drawing, I was able to see that the parts protected by the roof, where water did not fall, were quickly degrading and turning into a white dust. But inexplicably, those portions wet by the rain, assumedly the worst possible enemy, looked in perfect condition although they were colored by microflora, while the dry parts protected by the sheet were the most affected by the phenomenon of degradation. In view of such a strange phenomenon, the Pennsylvania State University, who was responsible at that time for the site, made the decision to reintegrate the wall previously dismounted to clean the frieze, and covered it once more, thus providing a permanent protection. Almost simultaneously, and while cleaning Structure 5D-33-2nd, I was in charge of cleaning and documenting the west mask (Figure 4). The purpose of this excavation was to exhibit the ancient masks by placing a fiberglass roof that would provide enough light so that visitors could take pictures. A similar treatment was received by another mask previously located on the south façade of Estructure 5D-22. The degradation phenomenon previously observed was also present in the sculptures with the fiberglass roofing, with identical characteristics. In this case they remained exhibited to visitors.
A different phenomenon that keeps catching my attention is that those structures located in shady places show a better state of preservation (Photo 40 and Photo 41, shown above) than those located under the sun (Photo 42 and Photo 43). Common sense indicated that humidity and dryness played a determinant role; so, after several conversations with the authorities of the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala, IDAEH, we proceeded to dampen the mask on Structure 5D-33-2nd, with the help of a fumigator pump (Photo 44, shown below, 1972). Results were surprising, as the deterioration process was almost immediately interrupted, except in those parts that were closer to the sheets; therefore, a few years later, we switched from fiberglass to a palm-leaf roofing.
Photo 47, shown below, 1978, shows the mask on Structure 5D-22 heavily destroyed under the roof, while the portions exposed to rain water and colored by microflora looked much better. This was not touched at all, for comparative reasons. The difference observed in 2000 was amazing: the mask on Structure 5D-33-2nd, with no humidity following the change of roof accomplished in 1980, is still there (Photo 45, shown above), black with microflora but still there, while the other one (Photo 48, below) is hardly recognizable.
On the east side of Structure 5D-33-2nd, another mask is found, identical to the one previously described. Its state of conservation is amazingly good, I could even say it looks the same than when I first saw it thirty four years ago (Photo 46). The main difference lies in the fact that it was left inside a tunnel; it was not exposed to climatic change, neither was it roofed with transparent sheets so that visitors could take pictures; on the contrary, it was left inside the tunnel with a high degree of humidity, but constant, and free of winds, effects of sunlight and with little or none touristic visitors. |
||
|
Text links to all pages at this site are available at the FAMSI INDEX |
||
