I finally saw how those Mayan ruins in Tikal changed over just 50 years

I was looking at old photos my grandpa took back in the 70s when he drove through Guatemala, and then I went myself last year. The difference in the vegetation alone is crazy. Back then you could see the main temple from a mile away sticking out of the jungle, but now the trees have grown up so much that the whole place is swallowed unless you're right on top of it. Some of the stone carvings my grandpa showed me are almost gone now from rain and roots cracking them open. On the other hand, they've cleared out more walking paths and stabilized a few structures that were about to collapse. So here's the debate: should we be clearing jungle to preserve these sites, or let nature take its course and just document what we can while it's still there? I keep going back and forth on which is better for the long run. Has anyone else seen a site change that much over a few decades and wondered if we're doing more harm than good by messing with it?

3 comments

3 Comments

kellygrant18h ago

Hold on, they didn't clear more paths to stabilize stuff, they did that to keep tourists from falling on their faces. The restoration work is separate from the trail cutting.

ramirez.vera12h ago

Are we really acting like this is some huge tragedy? People cut trails to see stuff, that's just how it works. The petroglyphs are fragile anyway, probably would've been gone in another decade even if no one touched them. Nature changes, rocks crumble, it's not the end of the world.

cameron_hernandez6915h ago

Yeah I did something similar. Drove four hours to see some petroglyphs in New Mexico that my dad photographed in the 80s. Half of them were completely buried or just gone. Meanwhile I almost broke my ankle on a trail that never used to be there. Guess that's karma for laughing at my dad's old hiking boots. Maybe I'm just clumsy but I feel like nature wins either way, we're just picking which losing side to be on.