The current status of cultural resource management in the Antarctic

The term “cultural resource management” includes prehistoric and historic sites, any material recovered from these sites, and places or areas of historic or religious significance. Cultural resource management involves the preservation and recovery of cultural resources that might otherwise be threatened by vandalism or construction (Fagan 1996 p.156). In this review, cultural resources are taken to include the archaeological record, which is the result of site formation processes - the processes of people and nature that create – in the landscape- evidence of the cultural past. This evidence, consisting of isolated artefacts, artefact scatters, monuments, sites and other vestiges of human behaviour including rubbish dumps, is called the archaeological record (Fagan 1996 p.650). An examination of cultural resource management in the Antarctic is limited to the recent past, the domain of historical archaeology, since there is no record of prehistoric or indigenous occupation in Antarctica. The review has focussed on the status of the management of the non-built environment – essentially archaeological deposit, isolated artefacts and artefact scatters. There is an existing, comprehensive literature on the management of the huts of the “Historic Era” which is easy to access. The heritage significance of these huts has been identified and accepted by the Antarctic Treaty members, as evidenced by their designation as Historic sites under Annex V of the Madrid Protocol (1991). While, there is continuing debate over how best to conserve individual huts, professionally qualified archaeologists and conservation architects are involved in the development of conservation or management plans for their continued management by identified agencies (for example Godden Mackay Logan 2001, Downie & Smellie 2001, TAE/IGY Hut Project Team 2001, AHT 2003 and Liddle 2001). The situation with regard to management of archaeological deposit in Antarctica, in particular where it has not been associated with one of the historic hut precincts, is a different matter. An area of potential conflict has developed, over the recognition of archaeological deposit as cultural resource rather than rubbish, with the adoption of Annex III of the Madrid Protocol. Annex III contains provisions for waste management and removal, which are a potential threat to the conservation of archaeological deposits in-situ. The International Polar Heritage Committee (IPHC) has expressed concern recently that “there is no recognised way of defining what an “historic site” is and much significant historic material is under threat because its historic value is not accepted.” (IPHC 2001) The IPHC has adopted as a guiding principle for its own work that: 1 “all evidence of previous/finished human activity in the polar areas has a potential significance for the documentation and understanding of the history of these areas and should be expertly assessed with an eye to possible designation as a cultural heritage site before being altered or removed.