Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T16:32:28.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation Studies on Limestone from the Maya Site at Xunantunich, Belize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

William S. Ginell ,
Rakesh Kumar  and
Eric Doehne
William S. Ginell
Affiliation:
The Getty Conservation Institute, 4503 Glencoe Avenue, Marina del Rey, California 90292, USA
Rakesh Kumar
Affiliation:
The Getty Conservation Institute, 4503 Glencoe Avenue, Marina del Rey, California 90292, USA
Eric Doehne
Affiliation:
The Getty Conservation Institute, 4503 Glencoe Avenue, Marina del Rey, California 90292, USA
Get access

Abstract

The limestone used in the construction of much of the 8-1 ith century Maya structures at Xunantunich, Belize is mechanically weak. Active microfloral growth, cyclic changes in humidity and temperature, and exposure to the erosive effects of wind and rain have resulted in deterioration of the stone used at the site. Limestone samples were consolidated using water-compatible and other consolidants and were exposed to both sunny and shaded tropical environments for one year. Data-logging meteorological stations were used to monitor the temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, wind conditions and solar irradiance during the exposures. Accelerated aging tests on similarly treated specimens were performed in the laboratory. Dilute epoxy and acrylic resin systems in hydrophilic solvents were found to penetrate and consolidate weak limestone. Several biocides applied in dilute aqueous solution were effective in preventing microfloral growth on new limestone and for controlling in situ growth on historic limestone.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 352: Symposium – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology IV , 1995 , 813
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Leventhal, R. M., Zeleznik, S., Jamison, T., LeCount, L., Govern, J. OMc., Sanchez, J. and Keller, A., paper presented at Palenque Mesa Redonda, Anniversario Katun, Palenque, Mexico, 1993.Google Scholar
2. Torre, M. A. de la, Gomez-Alarcon, G., Vizcaino, C., Garcia, M.T., Biogeochemistry 19, pp 129–147 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Phillips, M. W., Studies in Conservation 32, pp 145–152 (1987).Google Scholar
4. Selwitz, C., in Epoxy Resins in Stone Conservation, (Getty Conservation Institute, Marina del Rey, California, 1992), p. 18 Google Scholar
5. Kumar, R. and Ginell, W. S., paper presented at American Institute for Conservation Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, June, 1994.Google Scholar
6. Phillips, M. W., paper presented at Congress on Science and Technology in the Service of Conservation, Washington D. C., 1982, pp 56–60.Google Scholar
7. Hale, M. E., Research Report (National Geographic Society, Washington D. C.) 16, pp 305–321 (1975).Google Scholar
8. Richardson, B. A., Biodeterioration 7, pp 101–106 (1988).Google Scholar
9. Wheeler, G. S., Shearer, G.L., Fleming, S., Kaets, L. W., Vega, A., and Koestler, R. J., Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology, II Symposium, San Francisco, California, 1990 pp 209–226.Google Scholar