Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean (14.2002(2003))

HAWARTE

SYRIA

TRANSFER OF THE MITHRA-HELIOS WALL PAINTING

The wall painting brought from Damascus
to Hama was part of a larger scene re-
presenting Mithra as Helios. It had once
decorated the eastern wall of the main room
of the mithraeum in Hawarte.
It had been cut from the wall before
1998 and separated from the earlier paint
layer. Both layers, each about 0.2-0.5 cm
thick, had been backed with gauze and
transported on a plaster bedding that was
profiled to correspond to the original curve
of the wall in the mithraeum {Fig. la). The
condition of the upper paint layer was
evaluated as fairly good, while the surface
of the lower one, covered with a thin
coating of lime plaster, was full of cracks
and gaps that made it generally illegible.
After preliminary treatment involving
cleaning and consolidation, it was possible
to distinguish the colors and the com-
position of the painted scene.
With the objective of preparing the
Mithra-Helios wall painting for future
display as a self-standing panel, more
attention was given to the preservation of
the original curve of the wall and providing
a geometric background and frame.
The first step was to dust the surface
using natural brushes and wishab sponges.
A 30% solution of ethanol in water was
tamponed on to clean the painted surface
chemically. A detached fragment of the
mural representing the moon, found in one
of the boxes, was fixed and glued to the rest
of the scene. The cracks and empty spaces
were filled with newly prepared stucco
(1:1:1.5 parts of fine sand-calcium carbo-
nate-PRiMAL AC-33).
In order to prepare the new background
the entire painted surface was first protected
with Japanese tissue, followed with two
layers of gauze and canvas glued with
polyvinyl alcohol in water. A polyethylene

sheet was used to isolate the facing from the
wet gypsum applied on top as the new
plaster bedding, reinforced with linen flocks
and wooden bars. This was then turned
upside down, opening the way to the
preparation of a supporting construction
composed of several layers.
The reverse side of the painting was
impregnated with Plextol B-500. A layer
of cotton gauze and another of canvas were
stuck with Primal AC-33 (1:1 solution in
water). This was followed by a layer of
ground (calcium carbonate with 60%
polyvinyl acetate), leveled with a thin layer
(0.2 cm) of the same putty with sifted
sand. A sheet of polystyrene foam (1 cm
thick) was glued with polyvinyl acetate as
an intervention layer, permitting the rein-
forced original painting to be detached
easily, if need be, from the composite
structure.
Another two layers of canvas were stuck
with polyvinyl acetate to the intervention
layer. This was followed with another layer
of mortar (polyvinyl acetate with calcium
carbonate) and finally a thick layer of shellac
in ethanol. Sand was spread while the resin
was still liquid in order to form an abrasive
surface for better adhesion of the next layer
of fiberglass fabric. This fabric was stuck
with an epoxy resin Epidian 5, used also to
fix the honeycomb aluminum panels on top.
Panels had to be cut to adjust them to the
size of the painting and left under pressure
until the resin dried.
When the opportunity for reversing the
transfer presented itself, the facing was re-
moved from the paint surface with hot
water compresses which dissolved the
polyvinyl acetate.
The edges of the original painting were
reinforced with strips of gauze and Primal
AC-33. The empty spaces and gaps on the

296