MAWSON’S HUTS HISTORIC SITE

CONSERVATION PLAN

Michael Pearson

October 1993 i MAWSON’S HUTS HISTORIC SITE CONSERVATION PLAN

CONTENTS

1. Summary of documentary and physical evidence 1

2. Assessment of cultural significance 11

3. Information for the development of the conservation and management policy 19

4. Conservation and management policy 33

5. Implementation of policy 42

6. Bibliography 49

Appendix 1 Year One - Draft Works Plan ii

INTRODUCTION

This Conservation Plan was written by Michael Pearson of the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) at the behest of the Mawson’s Huts Conservation Committee (MHCC) and the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD). It draws on work undertaken by Project Blizzard (Blunt 1991) and Allom Lovell Marquis-Kyle Architects (Allom 1988). The context for its production was the proposal by the Mawson’s Huts Conservation Committee (a private group supported by both the AHC and AAD) to raise funds by public subscription to carry out conservation work at the Mawson’s Huts Site. The Conservation Plan was developed between July 1992 and May 1993, with comment on drafts and input from members of the MHCC Technical Committee, William Blunt, Malcolm Curry, Sir Peter Derham, David Harrowfield, Linda Hay, Janet Hughes, Rod Ledingham, Duncan Marshall, John Monteath, and Fiona Peachey.

The Conservation Plan outlines the reasons why Mawson’s Huts are of cultural significance, the condition of the site, the various issues which impinge upon its management, states the conservation policy to be applied, and how that policy might be implemented. Prior to each season’s work at the Historic Site a Works Program will be developed which indicates the works to be undertaken towards the achievement of the Plan. Following each season of works the Conservation Plan may be revised to take account of new evidence and knowledge gained. Approval of works and amendment of the Plan are matters that are the responsibility of the manager of the Historic Site, the Australian Antarctic Division. CHAPTER 1.

SUMMARY AND DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE

The documentary and physical evidence for the Mawson's Huts site is provided in Allom 1988, and Blunt 1991 (Vol 1.). These reports place the various huts and the site as a whole in an Australian and a world context. I do not intend to repeat this information and analysis here, but to regard the Allom report, supported in particular by the physical evidence provided in the Blunt report, as being the documentation on which the analysis of the cultural significance of the Mawson's Huts Historic Site will be based. The basic outline of the evidence is provided here for continuity and to provide a summary as background for the following parts of this Conservation Plan, but this Plan should be read in conjunction with the Allom report and the Blunt report.

1.1 The Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914.

Mawson planned the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) in 1911, following his involvement in the Shackleton expedition (1907-1909), offers to join the Scott expedition of 1910, and attempts to involve Shackleton in an expedition to the Australian sector of the continent. The AAE was largely manned by Australians and New Zealanders, and was financially supported by the Australian and British Governments as well as by a number of scientific bodies and private individuals through public subscription.

The British antecedents to the AAE, while acknowledging the value of science , were still organised primarily as expeditions of adventurous geographic discovery in the mold of the 19th century British Arctic expeditions. Indeed, the preparation for Scott's first ("Discovery") expedition in 1902 saw a major debate between those who wished to see science as the dominant purpose of the expedition, and those who wished to see the naval exploration tradition continued. The latter won (Markham 1986). The AAE, unlike its British antecedents, was to be solely devoted to science and scientific geographic enquiry, to investigate the region of Antarctica which lay immediately south of Australia.

The plan was to land three parties at widely separated points along the coast between 900E and 1580E, each to make continuous scientific recording at the base station and to carry out investigations of the surrounding regions by sledge journeys. A fourth party was to be landed at Macquarie Island, to carry out scientific work and to act as a wireless relay station for the first Antarctic wireless transmissions from the main Antarctic base.

The party was taken south in the "Aurora", a 600 ton, Dundee built, Arctic sealing and whaling ship. A party of 6 was landed at Macquarie Island, and the "Aurora" proceeded to the Antarctic mainland. Weather and timing problems lead to the decision to combine two of the mainland parties in a main base, and 18 men and two base huts (subsequently combined as the workshop and living hut) were landed at Cape Denison in Commonwealth Bay (Lat. 67000'S, Long. 142042' E) in January 1912. This base is what is now called the Mawson's Huts Historic Site. The remaining party of 8 men under the leadership of Antarctic veteran Frank Wild was landed subsequently on what they named the Shackleton Ice Shelf over 2,400 km along the coast to the west.

From the main base at Cape Denison Mawson and members of his party carried out a wide ranging scientific recording program in areas such as physics (magnetic and auroral observations especially), biology, meteorology, geology, and astronomy. Various sledging parties explored the coastal and inland regions up to 506 km to the east, 254 km to the west, and 480 km south.

Mawson's own eastern journey was the tragedy of the expedition. At 506 km distant from the hut one of the party of three, Belgrave Ninnis, disappeared down a crevasse, together with the 6 best sledge dogs, sledge, tent, and most of the food and spare clothing. Mawson and his remaining companion, Xavier Mertz, were left with a sledge, a spare tent cover and 10 days food for themselves and nothing for the remaining dogs. They were over 500 km and 5 weeks travelling time from the hut. Mawson and Mertz commenced their return journey, eating the dogs as they grew too weak to pull the sledge. The last dog was killed 10 days from the turning point.

Mawson and Mertz continued man-hauling the sledge, and eating the dog meat they carried. Mertz died of what has been since diagnosed as vitamin A poisoning from eating dogs liver, while they were still 160 km from the hut. Mawson cut-down the sledge, and continued alone towards the hut in a growing state of debilitation. Mawson arrived at Aladdin's Cave, a depot on the ice cap above Cape Denison a month after Mertz' death and nearly 7 weeks since Ninnis' death. He was trapped in the cave for a week by a blizzard, and finally arrived at the hut on the same day (February 8, 1913) that the "Aurora" had left. The ship was unable to return, having to relieve the western party before winter set in, and Mawson, in very poor condition, had to endure another winter at Cape Denison, with the company of 6 men who had stayed behind to search for his party. The party was finally taken off by the "Aurora" in December 1913.

The AAE had established a major recording of continuous meteorological observations, correlated to weather conditions in Macquarie Island and Australia by wireless communication. Its other scientific work laid the foundations for subsequent scientific expeditions and a model for such work. It had explored by sledge and ship over 1,100 km of coastline and penetrated over 400 km inland towards the South Magnetic Pole. It had carried out the first wireless transmissions from Antarctica. It was also the first major Australian scientific expedition of international significance after Federation.

The value of this work, and the extraordinary story of endurance of Mawson's sledge journey, were overshadowed by the attainment of the South Geographic Pole by Amundsen and Scott, and the deaths of Scott and his companions in 1912. World War One was also soon to take public attention away from the "Heroic era" endeavours in Antarctica. As a result, the achievements of Mawson and the AAE did not gain the lasting public recognition they deserved, even in Australia. Partly this was due to Mawson's own insistence that the AAE was about science, and not geographic "firsts" and glory, a view which set him apart from his contemporaries who were the last of the Edwardian heroic explorers. British explorers sold more newspapers than did Australian scientists. It is only in recent decades that the worth of Mawson's work and the extraordinary story of his sledge journey have received wide public recognition, to the point where Mawson has taken a rightful place in the popular mythology of exploration and Australian endeavour.

1.2 History of the site after the AAE

After Mawson left Cape Denison in 1913, the site was not visited again until he returned in 1931 during the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE). Five members of that expedition, including Mawson, spent a night ashore on 5-6 January 1931, and a series of photographs were taken, including some of the interior of the main hut showing some pedestals of ice in the living and workshop huts, but generally showing the hut to be free of ice. This was a passing visit, the only "formal" remains being the attachment of a small timber plaque and proclamation to the mast of the AAE anemometer station on Anemometer Hill. This proclaimed British sovereignty over this area of Antarctica. The next visits to the site were in the 1950s. (see Blunt 1991: vol 3 for a more complete discussion of subsequent visits) At least 4 French parties visited the site between 1950 and 1959 (the French operating a research station at Port Martin not far to the west from 1949 to 1953, and establishing Dumont D'Urville Station nearby in 1956). An Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions (ANARE) party visited the site in 1962, and the main hut was reported as being full of ice. Four further visits by NZ, USA and French parties occured during the 1960s, and four ANARE visits in the early and mid 1970s.

In 1978 a four person work party led by Rod Ledingham spent 40 days at the site, recording the hut and carrying out some work to try to seal the roof, which proved ineffectual. (Ledingham n.d.)

Three parties landed in the early 1980s, one being a "Lindblad Explorer" tourist cruise, another being David Lewis on a private expedition which dug into the hut and recorded artefacts, and the last another ANARE visit.

In 1984-85, and 1985-86, Project Blizzard, a privately funded party, spent two seasons at the site, recording the remains and undertaking emergency stabilisation work. (see Blunt 1991; Chester 1986). An ANARE party visited again in 1986 (Pearson 1986), and in the late 1980s at least one US party landed, two tourist ships visited the site, and three ANARE efforts to get to the site were unsuccessful due to ice and weather conditions and the sinking of the "Nella Dan".

1.3 The physical remains at Cape Denison

Cape Denison is an area of rock, 2km long and at maximum about 800m wide, protruding from the ice cap bordering the 60km wide Commonwealth Bay, the shores of which are, except for a few small rock outcrops, comprised of sheer ice cliffs. The AAE remains are concentrated at the western end of the Cape, where a shallow boat harbour gives access to a valley bounded by 40m high ridges and with the ice plateau rising from the inland end of the valley.

The AAE (1911-14) remains consist of:

• Main hut: being two expedition huts joined to provide a living hut with a workshop leading off it. Still complete, but largely ice filled. When Mawson left in 1913, much of the equipment and stores which could be sold to recoup AAE expenses were taken back to Australia. Subsequent expeditions visiting the hut seem to have made no modifications to the original structure or interior arrangements, only to have left some artefacts and material fragments, which has become incorporated into the ice now partially filling the hut (McGowan 1988).

The 1978 ANARE works party placed lead and Densotape on the roof of the workshop, and excavated the ice from the interior of the workshop (Ledingham n.d.). Project Blizzard placed props to support failing structural members in the main hut, and excavated holes through the ice for that purpose (Blunt 1991; McGowan 1988)

• Absolute Magnetic Hut: Now in ruins with roof lost, walls largely collapsed, and ice filled.

• Magnetograph House: Still intact, and at least until 1986 ice free. Reports from the most recent visits indicate that at least the outer room of the Magnetograph house is now snow filled. Some clothing and other material which appears to be of AAE origin is located in the hut. Visitors since the 1950s have used the Magnetograph House as shelter and as a location for leaving messages (Blunt 1991 vol 1:10-23). These visitors have left food, alcohol and other items in the hut.

• Transit Hut: Still standing but in poor condition, with sections of wall eroded through. The exposed position of the Transit hut prevents it being snow-filled or buried.

• Memorial Cross: Erected in memory of Ninnis and Mertz in 1913. By 1931 the cross arm had blown off, and was re-attached by BANZARE party. It had blown off again by the 1970s, and was again re-attached by the 1978 ANARE works party. By 1984 it had again blown off, and remains today lying below the foot of the upright. The plaque itself, a carved piece of timber, was removed in 1977 by an ANARE party, encased in a perspex and metal case and returned to the site in 1978 (Blunt 1991 vol 1:101 and vol3:146). Project Blizzard found the plaque to be deteriorating within the case, and returned it to Australia in 1985. Materials conservation advice was that it was unwise to return the plaque to Antarctica, and in 1986 a replica plaque was placed on the cross upright using the existing bolt holes. (Pearson 1987).

Several reports have been prepared giving conflicting views on whether the cross arm should again be re-attached to the upright and whether in- situ conservation is possible (Blunt 1991 vol 1:268-269; Marshall 1987; Hughes 1992).

• Siting poles for magnetic observations: Comprising a number of 3" x 2" timber poles about 4 foot long. The north mark still exists, the east mark 130 feet east still exists, and the west mark was placed on a ridge 1,266 feet to the west of the Absolute Magnetic Hut (on the Memorial Cross ridge) and is no longer visible above the surface, having slipped between rocks. The AAE bench mark is carved into the rock to the east of the main hut. (Blunt 1991 vol 1:92, vol 2:225)

• Wireless masts: Several large timber sections of the wireless masts remain at the site were they fell north and south of the main hut. Wire, insulators chains and ropes probably associated with the masts and aerials form part of the artefact scatter to the east of the hut. (Blunt 1991 vol 1:106-107)

• Artefact scatters: While a large amount of the re-saleable equipment and stores were returned to Australia at the end of the AAE's stay, there remains around the main hut a large amount of material. This is largely packing and discarded building material, intermixed with domestic rubbish and assorted other materials. The location and identification of this material was started by Project Blizzard archaeologists, and is still not completed (Lazer 1985; McGowan 1986). These surveys recorded 269 artefacts within the main hut itself, 14 main areas of artefact concentration in the main historic site valley, and 18 significant artefacts outside the valley. A sledge, an aircraft wheel and ski, a pair of dividers, two spanners and a smoking pipe (as well as the Memorial cross plaque and Proclamation plaque and the proclamation and its canister) were removed by an ANARE party in 1975 "for preservation" (Blunt 1991 vol 1:23). The 1978 ANARE works party left the artefacts found or disturbed during their work in boxes within the hut, and created lists of the artefacts and noted their original locations. A number of books and magazines were returned to Australia.(Ledingham 1978: Appendix 5)

The artefacts of significance originally located at the site included an air tractor, in fact an aircraft with its wings removed. This aircraft had been used as a publicity draw card in Australia (an aircraft at this time was a rarity and was guarantied to attract visitors), but the plane had an accident and the wings were taken off and the fuselage and engine taken to Antarctica for experimental use as a propeller driven tractor. In Antarctica the air tractor was used in experiments of its hauling capacity, the aero engine seizing up when 14 km from the hut. Blunt (1991, vol1:102) concludes that the main frame of the plane has been blown into Commonwealth Bay since it was last seen in 1975, and is therefore probably not now part of the significant historic fabric of the historic site. The tail is reported to be inside the workshop of the main hut (Ledingham 1978).

The artefacts have undoubtedly been subjected to movement by the wind, and this aspect is the subject of a monitoring program commenced by Estelle Lazer (of Project Blizzard).

• Penguin and seal caches: Some of the remains (or in archaeological jargon "ecofacts") identified by Project Blizzard are piles of penguin and seal carcasses, hypothesized to be caches laid down by the AAE as emergency food stores. These remains, which are outside the main valley, require further research before identification is certain. If proven to be humanly created, these caches would have both historical interest, and scientific interest for research on baseline levels of environmental contaminants.

BANZARE remains consist of:

• Proclamation Pole and Plaque: On 5 January 1931, Mawson marked the claiming of British sovereignty over what is now the AAT, by attaching a plaque and proclamation in a brass cylinder to the pole which had supported the anemometer during the AAE period. This was the first of a small series of similar proclamations made at various landing spots as the "Discovery" cruised westwards along what is now the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory. The plaque itself, a carved piece of timber, was removed in 1977 by an ANARE party, encased in a perspex and metal case and returned to the site in 1978 (Blunt 1991 vol 1:112 and vol3:146). Project Blizzard found the plaque to be deteriorating within the case, and returned it to Australia in 1985. Materials conservation advice was that it was unwise to return the plaque to Antarctica, and in 1986 a replica plaque was placed on the pole (Pearson 1987). The proclamation itself was replaced with a photograph copy in 1978.

Post War remains consist of: • ANARE buildings: A number of accommodation and storage structures have been built by Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions (ANARE) at Cape Denison.

A small metal skinned insulated hut (Granholm Hut) was built in 1978 by the ANARE party, 100m from the AAE Hut on the west side of the Boat Harbour. Two seatainers (small steel containers) were left on site for storage and toilet shelter. A radio aerial was erected on the ridge 50 m south of the Memorial Cross. (Ledingham 1978: Appendix 11).

A fibreglass "Apple" hut , on loan from the Antarctic Division, was erected adjacent to the Granholm Hut by Project Blizzard in 1984. (Chester 1986: 135) This is still in place.

In December 1986 another ANARE hut (Sorensen Hut) was built outside and some distance to the east of the main valley, in anticipation of the eventual removal of the original ANARE hut.

• Project Blizzard plaques : Project Blizzard erected a frame with a number of plaques attached, which listed the sponsors providing funds for the expedition. This is located near the landing point on the edge of the Boat Harbour. The Project Blizzard report (Blunt 1991) appears to be inconsistent in its assessment of the significance of these plaques, Vol 2 (p7) recommending the removal of all Project Blizzard and ANARE fabric, while Vol 1 (p142) claims in the statement of significance that the plaques are significant. William Blunt (pers. com.) has subsequently resolved this apparent confusion by indicating that he believes that they should be removed from the historic site, but are significant documents which should be retained in association with any support facility elsewhere on Cape Denison.

1.4 The world context

Mawson's Huts fits into a context of polar exploration which needs to be appreciated if the site's significance is to be understood.

In the Arctic the most common accommodation for 19th century expeditions was in their beset ships. A number of huts were built, however, the earliest being William Barents hut built on the north-east coast of Novaya Zemlya in 1596. Robert Peary built a series of huts he had designed in northern Greenland in the 1890s, which incorporated features borrowed from Inuit experience (Peary 1898, 1917; Dick 1991), but the designs appear not to have influenced any Antarctic hut design. Adolphus Greely built a large hut on Robeson Strait in northern Ellesmere Island in 1881, which shares some features with the British huts built in Antarctica (Greely 1886), but there is no evidence that these similarities resulted from any conscious copying. A.E. Nordenskiold built a hut in Spitzbergen in 1872, which is clearly based on Scandinavian building precedence, and as such was in the same family of buildings as those built by the Scandinavian expeditions in Antarctica (Leslie 1879:199; Kish 1973:105). The only Arctic hut which was overtly copied by an Antarctic expedition was Amdrup's Cape Dalton hut of 1900 (Amdrup 1902). This was again in the Scandinavian pattern, and was used as the model for Otto Nordenskjold's Snow Hill Island hut in the Antarctic Peninsula in 1902. (see Pearson 1992; Allom 1988)

The exploration of Antarctica had a number of phases. The 18th and 19th Centuries was the period of sea-based exploration, of defining the bounds of Antarctica, and discovering spots on its coast and its islands. The Heroic Era of land-based exploration might be said to start with the first landing on mainland Antarctica by Henryk Bull in 1895. The first expedition to winter in Antarctica was the "Belgica" expedition led by Adrien de Gerlache in 1898. The first shore- based wintering was that of Carsten Borchgrevink in 1899-1900. The Heroic Era came to an end with the relief of the Ross Sea party of Shackleton's Transantarctic Expedition in 1917 (though some extend it to Shackleton's death on his aborted "Quest" expedition in 1922).

Apart from a few land-based expeditions in the Antarctic Peninsula area in the 1920s and 30s, the next phase of Antarctic exploration was based on aircraft surveys of the continent and marine science surveys of the seas around it. Air survey commenced with Australian-born Sir Hubert Wilkins in 1928-29, and was developed by Byrd, Elsworth, and Rymill (also an Australian). Richard Byrd flew to the South Pole on 29 November 1929, being the first man see the pole since Scott's party 17 years earlier. Lincoln Ellsworth and Herbert Hollick-Kenyon undertook the first trans-continental flight (from Graham's Land to Little America at the Bay of Whales) in November-December 1935.

At sea the British "Discovery" Committee commenced marine science cruises, aimed particularly at whale stock assessment and conservation, in 1924. This work continued at intervals for four decades. Marine science work was combined with territorial claim setting on the BANZARE expeditions of Mawson in 1929-31.

During the 1920s and 30s there were a number of nations involved in establishing territorial claims over parts of Antarctica. These claims were set to one side by the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1961.

The modern era of Antarctic activity was heralded by the USAs Operation Highjump in 1946. Permanent research stations were established in the late 1940s and early 1950s by the UK, France, Chile, Argentina, and Australia, but it was the International Geophysical Year activities of 1957-58 which saw the boom in base development, with 40 stations being established on the mainland and peninsula, and a further 20 on the surrounding islands. There are currently about the same number of permanent stations on the continent, and a large number of summer bases as well.

Mawson's Huts Site is a part of Heroic Era history. In Antarctica nine expedition accommodation huts were built in the Heroic Era between 1899 and 1912. These can be divided into three main design types, reflecting Scandinavian, British, and Australian design influences. (see Pearson 1992 for a detailed discussion of designs, their origins and appropriateness for Antarctic conditions).

The Scandinavian designed huts were Borchgrevink's hut at Cape Adare (1899), Nordenskjold's hut at Snow Hill Island (1902), and Amundsen's hut on the Ross Ice Shelf at the Bay of Whales (1911). The Scandinavian huts incorporated design features such as; gable roof forms with lofts in the roof spaces to provide additional storage and insulation; thick plank construction with insulation material inserted between multiple plank layers; and medium size to accommodate up to 10 men. The designs were based strongly on traditional Scandinavian building styles and technology, and while they were very thermally efficient, they met with varying degrees of success in Antarctic conditions, mainly due to an incorrect balance between ventilation, insulation and heating. However, one of these huts, Amundsen's, was probably the most successful design of the period in terms of the comfort it provided its occupants.

The British designed huts were Shackleton's hut at Cape Royds (1908), Scott's hut at Cape Evans (1911), and Scott's Northern Party hut (Campbell's Hut) at Cape Adare (1911). The British huts incorporated design features such as; framed structures with tongue and grooved boarding cladding, with insulation material inserted between the layers of cladding; and gable or gambrel roof forms with ceiling boards attached to the undersides of the purlins. The design of the huts gave large air spaces, which required efficient heating if they were to be kept at a comfortable temperature. Shackleton's hut was ineffectively heated, and was a cold hut to live in. The British huts house from 6 to 25 men.

The Australian designed huts were Scott's "Discovery" hut at Hut Point (1902), Mawson's hut at Cape Denison (1912), and Mawson's Western Party hut (Wild's Hut) on the Shackleton Ice Shelf (1912). The Australian huts were frame buildings clad in tongue and grooved boards with little or no insulation materials added, and with pyramidal roof forms with ceiling boards attached to the purlins or rafters. They had verandahs on three sides, enclosed in the case of Mawson's and Wild's huts to provide storage and insulation space. Scott's "Discovery" hut was a standard prefabricated Australian rural homestead, and was undoubtedly the least successful of the huts of the era. The Mawson and Wild hut, however, while having the same basic form as "Discovery", were consciously designed for Antarctic conditions, and were far more successful.

Two of the huts of the era, Amundsen's and Wild's, were built on ice shelves and have subsequently been lost due to the calving of the ice as it reached the sea. Campbell's hut is now in total ruin, having collapsed by the 1960s. There remains, therefore, only two examples of each of the Scandinavian, British, and Australian hut designs from the first era of Antarctic land exploration surviving today. Three of these huts on Ross Island ( Shackleton's and the two Scott huts) are relatively close to major modern Antarctic stations, and have been the subject of conservation activity since the 1960s. As a result, Mawson's hut and site is amongst the least disturbed and more intact huts and sites, if not the most intact, of those remaining from the era. As far as is known, no example of an accommodation hut from the 19th and early 20th century exploration of the Arctic survives intact, though other structures from this period associated with the settlement of the Arctic and the exploitation of its resources do exist. CHAPTER 2.

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

2.1 Introduction Having described the place and its context in the last chapter, this chapter provides a statement of the cultural significance of the place - the reasons why the place is of value to present and future generations. Those reasons are simply defined in the Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS (International Council for Monuments and Sites), the primary document guiding conservation in Australia, and in the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, as being the aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values attached to the place by the present generation, or likely to be valued by future generations.

The fact that Mawson's Main Hut, Transit Hut, Magnetograph House and Memorial Cross are entered in the Register of the National Estate, and that the Main hut and the Memorial Cross are recognised as Historic Monuments by the Antarctic Treaty Parties, is recognition in itself that the place has cultural significance.

The Australian Heritage Commission has recommended to the Australian Antarctic Division that the principle historic zone at Cape Denison be recognised as an area encompassing the main valley containing the Mawson's huts and the main areas of associated remains. The area is described as being west of a line along the ridge located to the east of the magnetic huts and the AAE east marker, running south between Long and Alga Lakes to the ice cap edge, and then west to Land's End, the western-most point of Cape Denison. Where this report refers to the "Mawson's Huts Historic Site" this is the area referred to.

The assessment of significance in this Plan draws largely on previous work, particularly that of Allom (1988).

2.2 Criteria for Significance

The assessment of significance can be approached in a variety of ways. To ensure consistency in its own assessments, the Australian Heritage Commission has developed a set of criteria to assist in the assessment of significance, and these have been incorporated in its legislation. The Register of the National Estate, created using these criteria, incorporates not only places with historical significance, but also places of natural and Aboriginal significance. Hence its criteria are broad enough to cover all three environmental components. For the purpose of this discussion, the criteria are paraphrased to refer only to the historic environment appropriate to the assessment of Mawson's Huts Historic Site. Briefly, the criteria identify that a place may be of significance because of its:

• importance in the course or pattern of Australia's history - their association with events, developments or cultural phases which have had a significant role in the human occupation of the nation;

• possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of Australia's history - such as demonstrating a distinctive way of life, custom, process, land- use, function or design no longer practiced, in danger of being lost, or of exceptional interest;

• importance in demonstrating the principle characteristics of a class of Australia's cultural places - the ability of the place to represent its type;

• special association with the life or works of a person or group of persons, of importance in Australia's history;

• strong or special associations with a particular community or cultural group for social or cultural reasons - a place highly valued by the community for reason of spiritual, symbolic, cultural or social association;;

• potential to yield information that will contribute to a wider understanding of Australia's history - the scientific (including archaeological) value of the place in providing evidence not available in other ways ;

• importance exhibiting aesthetic characteristics valued by a community;

• importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period;

These criteria refer to significance in an Australian context only, and as the significance of any Antarctic monument is likely to be of international significance, the criteria for assessing such monuments should be read in a broader context. The assessment below therefore expands the criteria to the international level where appropriate. 2.3 Significance of Mawson's Huts Historic Site

The significance of Mawson's Huts Historic Site is summarised against each of the criteria used for assessment of National Estate values, as outlined in 2.2 above, expanded to allow a world as well as an Australian context. The significance of the site as a whole is dealt with, then the contribution of each element of the site is identified where it is particularly relevant to the criteria.. i) Importance in the course or pattern of history

Mawson's Huts Historic Site has historical importance for its association with the Heroic Era of Antarctic exploration, and with the scientific research which was a central part of the first period of land-based exploration of Antarctica. This period in Antarctic history also marks the beginning of the last major terrestrial exploration of a continent in world history. Australia's contribution to that phase was substantial and Mawson's expedition was one of the last of that period. The only subsequent expedition, Shackleton's Transantarctic Expedition in 1914, failed to fulfil most of its primary objectives, and left no hut of its own as evidence of its work. The period of Antarctic exploration which followed World War I was characterised by the use of aeroplanes and major efforts by several nations to claim sovereignty over parts of the continent, and as far as is known no huts survive from this period. All AAE remains on the site reflect this value equally.

Mawson's work at Cape Denison itself became one of the key anchor points for Australia's own claims to Antarctic territory. Mawson himself laid claim there on behalf of Britain in 1931, that claim being transfered from Britain to Australia by a British Order-in-Council in 1933, and confirmed by the Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Bill in the same year, which took effect in 1936 (Swan 1961:207-211). Mawson's Huts Historic Site is the only surviving point of occupation in that territory pre-dating the expansion of modern exploration in the 1940s and 50s. The Proclamation Pole, and the Plaque (now removed to Australia) are specific remains which relate to this aspect of history.

In terms of its historical value related to science, the site of Mawson's Huts is significant, marking the location of the earliest large scale scientific enquiry by Australians outside Australia following Federation. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914, laid firm foundations for Australia's continued participation in Antarctic research and exploration and the Cape Denison site is significant as the main base of these undertakings. Included among the achievements of the AAE was the first use of radio on the Antarctic continent, linking the main base at Cape Denison with mainland Australia via the relay station established on Macquarie Island. The magnetic huts, transit hut and remains such as the radio masts, are specific elements of the site which reflect this historical association. ii) Possession of uncommon, rare, or endangered aspects of history:

Mawson's Huts is one of only six bases known to survive in the Antarctic region from the Heroic Era and due to its isolated location it remains probably the most intact of these bases. It would appear that few of the Arctic expedition huts from the 19th and early 20th centuries survive (Peary’s huts at Fort Conger are an exception (Dick 1991)). Mawson's Hut is therefore rare in a world historical context. All elements of the site contribute to this intactness, and hence to the site's rarity.

As the main base of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914, the first and the only expedition organised, manned and supported by Australians during the Heroic Era, it is one of only two bases constructed in the Australian Antarctic Territory in this period and the only surviving base. It is therefore unique in the context of Australian history. All aspects of the site share this value, though the Main Hut may be felt by many to be the key item reflecting this value. iii) Importance in demonstrating the principle characteristics of a class of historic places:

For this assessment, the "class" refered to is huts of the Heroic Era. Mawson's Huts Historic Site is one of six surviving Heroic Era wintering bases, and demonstrates the range of building uses, scientific equipment and artefact types typical of its class and period. All elements of the site contribute to this demonstration of what an Heroic Era base was like.

As one of two remaining Australian designed huts, Mawson's Main Hut is an important example of one of the three main design influences found in Antarctic exploration huts of the Era, and hence represents a type which demonstrates the variety which existed within the class. iv) Special association with the life or works of a person or group of persons, of importance in history;

This base contains the only in-situ evidence of early Australian Antarctic research associated with several important figures and groups in Australian and Antarctic history including:

1. The association is with the 18 members of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914, with the construction and occupation of Mawson's Huts, and with the site from which they undertook an extensive scientific program. These activities and associations are important to Australia's history in terms of Australia's early achievement in Antarctic scientific exploration and discovery. All elements of the site contribute to this value.

2. The association with the instigator and leader of the Expedition and designer of the huts, Douglas Mawson. Mawson was instrumental in every facet of the Expedition's organisation from its conception through to the development of the main structure and the execution of the scientific undertakings. In addition, Mawson was the sole survivor of a tragic sledging journey in which B E S Ninnis and Xavier Mertz lost their lives and to whom a memorial was erected on Memorial Hill. Each of the building at the site, and the Memorial Cross, individually illustrate aspects of this association. v) Strong or special associations with a particular community for social or cultural reasons:

The site of Mawson's Huts generally, with the huts and memorial cross particularly, is significant as a symbol of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914, its members, its achievements and its sacrifices. The "communities" who value these associations include the community of Antarctic veterans, the scientific community, and the Australian community as a whole. The esteem in which Mawson is held by the community is reflected in his portrayal on the Australian $100 note. Mawson's achievements have powerful symbolic value for the Antarctic science community, setting a model for science based exploration which has been adhered to by Australia in its subsequent Antarctic programs. Douglas Mawson's story has become part of Australia's exploration history, and as such is part of the nation's cultural tradition. It is arguably the most important and exciting exploration by an Australian this century, and has taken on a mythic quality which has merged with the popular interpretation of the Australian character and ethos, fitting as it does into mold of 'success through tragedy' shared with other stories such as Gallipoli, Burke and Wills, and the generalised Australian "battler". vi) Potential to yield information that will contribute to a wider understanding of history:

The site of Mawson's Huts contains evidence of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition scattered over its entirety. The Hut Valley, where all of the structures associated with the Australasian Antarctic Expedition and the highest concentration of artefacts are located has the greatest level of significance. Within this are original points from which surveying, cartographic, meteorological and magnetic observations were made are still extant and provide the facility to continue comparative scientific research.

The weathering and survival of the huts and the decay of other artefacts as a result of 75 years exposure in hostile conditions, provides archaeological and scientific research potential in the area of materials deterioration and conservation.

As an archaeological resource, the significance of the site at Cape Denison and its associated structures and artefacts lies not only in the intrinsic historic value of these artefacts but also in the insights it provides into human behaviour in Antarctic conditions and the provisions and equipment available to the Expedition during the early twentieth century. It has the potential to provide information on human responses to isolation and confinement imposed by the distance from civilization and extreme climatic conditions. This aspect of the site's significance is enhanced by the fact that of all the remaining historical hut sites in the Antarctic region, it would appear to have been subject to the least intervention. vii) Importance exhibiting aesthetic characteristics valued by a community: Mawson's Huts and their site do not conform to a common set of values or principles related to aesthetics in the usual sense of scale, form, homogeneity of materials or views in an urban or a townscape sense. They do however, have a landscape value associated with the visual impact of isolated structures within a vast desert of ice and snow. On a smaller scale, the weathering of the huts and the patination of their fabric and of other artefacts, serve as a gauge to the observer of time elapsed since the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1914 and of the conditions endured by its members in this remote and hostile environment. This characteristic cannot be separated from the aesthetic responses to the site.

The pragmatic considerations for shelter in a foreign and remote environment appear to have overshadowed any aesthetic concerns in the usual sense in the development of huts for polar regions. Although the exact derivation of Mawson's hut design is unknown, the resulting building displays an architectural quality reflecting the strength of the structural form.

Mawson's Huts Site has largely maintained its historic form due to the isolation and remoteness of their site on a small peninsula of rock surrounded by a vast area of ice and this, whilst reinforcing the symbolic and historical significance of the site, provides powerful visual value. The later, post-Australasian Antarctic Expedition buildings and some signs and plaques on the site detract from this visual impact. viii) Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period:

The creative significance of Mawson's Huts lies in the development of a hut model by the instigator and leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914, geologist Douglas Mawson. Of the three huts based on this design, only two survive, and these were combined to create the main living and workshop hut of what is now Mawson's Hut.

Technically the Main Hut of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition is of substantial importance. Of all the polar huts of the Heroic Era, the Main Hut is one of only two surviving hut structures, both Australian, which departed significantly from the ridge-roofed form of polar hut construction and comprised a distinctive pyramidal roof over a square plan with verandahs to three sides. The other hut was the "Discovery" hut of the 1901-1903 British Antarctic Expedition. In terms of the huts' performance however, the Main Hut of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition was technically superior to the Hut Point hut, which was undoubtedly the least successful of all the Antarctic huts.

In its construction, the Main Hut possessed great strength derived from its form, and its performance in the most severe of polar climates attests to this strength. The conscious design of the hut by Mawson was a bold and successful attempt in the development of a suitable building for the inhospitable Antarctic environment. It not only relied upon the experience of earlier expeditions with regard to materials and cladding methods, but from his own knowledge and experience came aspects of the hut which adds to its architectural and technical significance.

2.4 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Mawson's Huts Historic Site is of historical significance as one of the small set of Heroic Era expedition bases which symbolise the first period of land-based scientific research and geographic discovery in Antarctica. The era was one of great human adventure and achievement. As one of the six remaining huts of the era Mawson's hut is rare in the world context, and, as the only site representing the work of an Australian expedition, is unique in the context of Australian history.

The site of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914 illustrates in its surviving form and setting, the isolation and hardship encountered by members of the expedition in their important work during that period. The expedition resulted in not only scientific achievements but also laid the seeds for the eventual claim to a large portion of the Antarctic continent by an emerging nation. Those symbolic qualities emphasise dramatically the now almost legendary activities of Sir Douglas Mawson and his party in that period and represent a role model within which the continuing exploration and scientific expeditions in Antarctica by Australians operate. The site is also physical evidence and a memorial of the Mawson story which has been absorbed into the Australian mythic tradition.

The site including its surviving buildings and artefacts is significant as a rich resource of relatively undisturbed material from the period of its first settlement. The extant buildings are significant for the part they play in demonstrating the development of Antarctic building design during an era of great experimentation in responses to the uncertainty about the conditions to be overcome. CHAPTER 3.

INFORMATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICY

3.1 Implications stemming from the Assessment of Significance 3.2 Physical condition and integrity 3.3 Logistical constraints 3.4 Climatic constraints 3.5 Management opportunities and constraints 3.6 Tourism and non-ANARE visitors to the site 3.7 Unknowns

In order to develop a realistic Conservation Plan for Mawson's Huts Site, it is necessary to identify all of the opportunities and constraints that face the manager in the task of conserving and managing the place. The best conservation plan in the world would be useless if the manager were not able to implement it. This chapter looks at the information relevant to the development of a realistic plan, focussing both on what is necessary to retain the cultural significance of the place, and what is the management climate in which conservation would have to occur.

Some information essential for the conservation of the place is not yet available, and this has to be taken into account in the structuring of the Plan and its implementation.

3.1 Implications stemming from the Assessment of Significance

Allom (1988:54-56) has addressed some of the issues to be considered in planning for the site, some of which relate to the implications of retaining the identified cultural significance of the place. An assumption is made in writing this chapter, that the primary intention of the Conservation Plan is to provide a framework for the conservation of the Mawson's Huts Site. It is therefore critical that the implications flowing directly from the Statement of Significance for the place are identified and given prominence when considering the options available for that conservation and management of the place. Drawing implications from assessed significance is an even less precise science than the original assessment of the significance, and will be subject to changes as the technology of conservation changes, and as the attitudes of society towards its heritage change over time. What follows is therefore largely a subjective assessment based on the author's knowledge of the current thinking in conservation planning, and in the context of early 1990s conservation technology.

3.1.1 The question of conservation in situ or returned to Australia: A debate has taken place in Australia over a number of years as to whether Mawson's Hut should be conserved where it is, or dismantled and returned for reconstruction in an Australian museum ( see the debate between Burch, 1988 and Pearson 1988). There is no simple answer to that question. However, the current standards of conservation philosophy and practice in Australia (echoing the Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS) dictate that conservation should be carried out in situ unless that would lead to an unacceptable threat to the cultural significance of the place.

The question of in situ conservation will also be influenced if the Madrid Protocol of the Antarctic Treaty Parties is ratified, as outlined below. Annex 5 Article 8 of the Protocol provides that listed historic monuments and sites shall not be “damaged, removed or destroyed”. Australia, like other Treaty parties, has agreed to comply with the Protocol's provisions as far as possible pending its entry into force. The Commonwealth Government has indicated its acceptance of that obligation by stating that its policy is to conserve Mawson’s Huts in situ.

The significance of Mawson's Huts Site identified in Chapter 2 includes many aspects which relate to the existing fabric of the buildings, the artefacts, and the landscape in which they sit. Much of the stated value of the Site rests in its illustrative and symbolic value, symbolising scientific research, and historical association both with the Heroic Era and with individual people. These values will be affected in different ways depending on how the physical remains are treated. For instance, some aspects of value would undoubtedly be retained if the huts and artefacts were brought back to Australia, but other values would be lost in the process. Much of the symbolism in particular would be at risk in such a move. This is because the values do not simply reside in the timber and metal of the artefact, but are also in the context of its associated objects, its setting, and most importantly in its association with the location of the historical events which gave the inanimate objects cultural meaning.

The counter argument is that the main hut is at risk from decay in its current location, and should be returned to a museum in Australia for conservation and so that more Australians might be able to see it. Part of this argument, dealing with public interpretation of the site, could be dealt with as suggested by Allom: "Display and interpretation of the site in mainland Australia may be achieved by the use of reproductions, models and other devices that do not require intervention or disturbance of the significant material at the site. " (Allom 1988:56)

Ultimately, it could be argued that even if the return to Australia of the main hut were feasible - and that is far from demonstrated (see Hughes 1992) - the fact remains that the values identified in this Plan relate to all the buildings, and all the other artefacts at the site, and to the site itself. There is no possibility that all those elements of the site can be returned to Australia, and this plan is based on the assumption (based on the ICOMOS guidelines) that the removal of any major element of significance from the site would be unacceptable unless it were clearly demonstrated that conservation in situ was not possible, and that removal was preferable to total loss of the item.

3.1.2 Rarity The Statement of Significance argues that the Mawson's Huts site is rare in the world context and unique in the Australian historical context. That rarity is because the site is one of a set representing Antarctic history, and surviving in Antarctica. The rarity of the Site would be put at risk, or at least the nature of the rarity altered, if any major component contributing to that value were destroyed or removed from the site.

3.1.3 Association with people and events The Statement of Significance includes values relating to associations with Antarctic Heroic Era exploration and science, and with persons important to Antarctic and Australian history. Those associations are with the site as well as with the buildings. To some extent the site would retain those associations if all other elements of the place were destroyed or removed, but clearly the demonstration of those values is far greater and far more understandable if all elements of the site can be conserved. These associations are specific to a period, and later intrusions in the site detract from or confuse that value.

3.1.4 Potential to yield information The site's potential to yield archaeological information hinges on the continued presence of largely undisturbed deposits and scatters of artefacts which can be studied. An implication of the identification of this value is that the management of the place should attempt to protect the deposits and scatters from intentional or accidental disturbance or removal.

In the case of the potential of the site as a reference site for continuing scientific observations using AAE survey points, the implication for management is that such scientific reference points should be recorded in detail and protected from intentional or accidental disturbance.

3.1.5 Site aesthetics and symbolism The aesthetics and symbolism of the site; its remoteness, location at the ice edge juxtaposing human activity with hostile environment, and its weathered appearance marking the passage of time; are elements of a number of the values identified in the Statement of Significance. The retention of these values would suggest the need to protect the historical remains in a way which does not in the long term detract from their patina of age, nor confuse the scene by the addition of new structures. The non-AAE/BANZARE elements of the site either do not add, or actively detract from this value. The ability of visitors to recognise the sense of remoteness and isolation of the site would be reduced by large numbers of people or, for example, aircraft movements. The management guidelines for the site should take into account the desirability of preserving this experience when visitor access and control practices are drafted.

3.2 Physical condition and integrity

The details of the condition of the site and its individual parts is dealt with in Project Blizzard's Report (Blunt 1991 2:69-235), and by Allom (1988) Marshall (1987), and Hughes (1991). That evidence may be summarised as follows - those problems which might threaten the survival of the building or element in the short-term have been asterisked*:

Main Hut: • various roof timbers have split *• the living room hip rafters to north-east and south-east have split above the central platform, and the collar ties supporting the platform have fractured, due to weight of snow and ice, and two northern posts and eastern collar tie have suffered deflections. • two tension rods supporting the platform have disconnected from their fixings with the timber struts at the apex of the roof. *• all collar ties in the Workshop have fractured, two having pulled out of their end fixings. • external cladding has eroded and shrunk allowing ingress of snow and ice, especially on the exposed southern faces. • ceiling boards in the workshop have pulled free of their fixings in a number of places due to snow load in the roof cavity. • skylights have failed allowing ingress of snow and ice. • ridge cappings have failed allowing ingress of snow and ice. • snow and ice within the hut has resulted in damage to structural elements, cladding and artefacts. • ice load has caused deflection and buckling of the floor. • Fittings and materials in the hut have deteriorated, mainly due to high humidity. • mould within the hut is causing deterioration of materials. *• water accumulation adjacent to the hut may be causing conservation problems.

Absolute Magnetic Hut: *• roof missing. *• boards cladding the walls eroded and pulled away from frame in many areas. Some sections of framing have also become detached.

Magnetograph House: *• erosion along exposed southern wall/roof junction severe and threatening failure of weathertightness of structure, but has not yet breached inner cladding. *• upper half of dutch door no longer weathertight nor well fixed. • tar paper lining damaged in places • contents in good condition. • recent reports say at least the outer room is now snow-filled, due to the upper part of the dutch-door being left open during a visit in the early 1990s.

Transit Hut: *• severe erosion of timber cladding, which is missing in places. *• not weathertight. *• central instrument support post eroded and lettering being obliterated.

Memorial Cross: • substantial erosion of timber on upright. • cross bar has failed. Evidence suggests the post is not capable of sustaining the re-attachment of the cross-arm. • plaque removed and replaced with replica in 1986.

Siting poles for magnetic observations: • substantial erosion of posts, especially at exposed tops.

Proclamation Pole and plaque: • pole in corroded but not critical condition. • plaque and proclamation removed and replaced by replicas.

Artefact scatters: • deteriorating, but at an unknown and presumably slow rate.

Landscape: • integrity diminished by post-AAE/BANZARE structures, but essentially robust.

3.3 Logistical constraints

The fact that Mawson's Huts Site is in Antarctica imposes a number of severe logistical constraints that are unique to that location and environment. (Blunt 1991 2:12)

3.3.1 Access to site Commonwealth Bay is accessible by ship early in the summer season, the pack ice in this region usually breaking up by early December allowing access to Cape Denison. Access remains feasible until February or March, giving a potential access period of about three months each year. However, the frequent strong winds can prevent ship-to-shore access for substantial and unpredictable periods, amounting to days at a time. Commonwealth Bay in the vicinity of Cape Denison is a dangerous shore, very largely uncharted and with rock pinnacles rising to dangerously shallow depths. Large ships therefore cannot anchor safely, and must stand out from the site after landing parties.

Ship-to-shore access is limited to relatively light loads, the helicopters operated by ANARE currently being limited to loads of about 600 kg or 6 persons, and landing craft loads being limited to what can be placed ashore on the ice foot without landing ramps or platforms.

Helicopter access from ship is at present haphazard, there being no formal landing area designated. This issue needs addressing in the management policy. Access from Dumont d'Urville station, 85 km west of Cape Denison, to the site, has once been achieved by helicopter in 1977. Such access is feasible in the future, requiring two helicopters for safety reasons. If Australia is willing and able to utilise the nearly completed airstrip at Dumont d'Urville, this access would be attractive, though given the local weather pattern such access must be considered a high-risk option, and would be subject to Civil Aviation Authority safety requirements.

Overland access to Cape Denison was achieved in the 1950s by French parties from Port Martin, 45 km west of the site. This was limited to the October/ November period when crevasses along the route were still made passable by the presence of snow bridges. This would not be a good period for work at the huts site, as winter snow drifts would still be substantial. (Blunt 1992 2:12) It is not known if overland access from Dumont d'Urville is feasible.

3.3.2 Access costs Shipping costs to gain access to Cape Denison are extremely high. This is because the ships used should desirably be ice strengthened, and with the exception of the new Australian ship "Aurora Australis" have to be brought from the northern hemisphere to operate in the southern summer. Competition for these vessels among the nations operating in Antarctica is high. Charter costs are consequently high.

Access using ANARE vessels is difficult, as Cape Denison is distant from the Australian bases, and the diversion of ships to drop and retrieve parties substantially reduces the time such vessels are available for station resupply and marine science work. Cape Denison is 4-6 days voyage time from the nearest Australian mainland Antarctic station, Casey, and 3-5 days voyage time from Macquarie Island. The unpredictable weather conditions at Cape Denison also means that tight timetables may not be able to be kept if parties have to be landed or picked up. In 1990 the "Icebird" spent three days in Commonwealth Bay unsuccessfully attempting to place a party ashore. With an operating cost for a ship of this size of about $40,000 a day or more, the costs of such delays (quite apart from the voyage time from the established supply routes) are very substantial. However, one might argue that, up to a point, such costs are within the 'contingency' amount allowed by the AAD in its budget for operations in the notoriously unpredictable Antarctic arena.

Access by small vessels such as yachts is feasible and has been used on a number of occassions. However, the carrying capacity of such vessels is severely limited, and access through ice is even more difficult and hazardous than it is for larger vessels, as was shown by the sinking of the "Southern Quest" in the Ross Sea in 1986.

If the use of the landing strip at Dumont d'Urville is acceptable to Australia, and is logistically possible, and if helicopter access to Cape Denison is approved, the flight costs and helicopter hire and placement would be substantial. These have not as yet been calculated.

The cost of the human component, while insignificant when compared with the access costs, is substantial when compared with conservation exercises in Australia. If ship access is used, the "dead" time on voyage can be up to 18 days on a direct return voyage, or many weeks if a ship includes Commonwealth Bay in one of its re-supply voyages. The ANARE visit to Commonwealth Bay in 1986, for example, was absent from Australia for 9 weeks, of which 5 days were spent ashore at Mawson's Huts. If salaries are paid for a party, costs are very high in proportion to the time actually spent working on site.

3.4 Climatic constraints

The effect of climate on the logistics of an expedition has been touched on above. Cape Denison has been called the windiest place in the world. Summer average wind speed recorded by the AAE was 60km/h, the average daily minimum was 29km/h, the average daily maximum was 71km/h, and the highest one hour average was 122km/h. When this is combined with an average summer temperature of -30c (average daily minimum -50c), the impact on conservation operations, especially outside the hut itself, would be considerable. (Blunt 1991 2:18-19).

Such weather conditions results in a degree of unpredictability, commonly called the "Antarctic factor". This is generally interpreted as meaning that on average any task taking one hour in Australian conditions will take up to 3 hours in Antarctic conditions.

3.5 Management opportunities and constraints

3.5.1 Australian Antarctic Division as Manager For a Conservation Plan to be able to be implemented, there has to be a clear understanding of who controls decisions concerning the place.

While control and "ownership" of parts of Antarctica is contentious, the Antarctic Treaty sets aside formal disputation over territorial claims in Antarctica. The example set by the New Zealanders in the case of the conservation of the Scott and Shackleton Huts in the Ross Sea sector demonstrates that nations can take management responsibility for historic monuments and sites and can effectively manage these places, and that those responsibilities are acknowledged by other nations.

Given that the management of Mawson's Huts Site has been, by its actions, accepted as a responsibility by the Australian Government, it is taken for the purposes of this plan that the AAD is the manager of the site on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. The AAD's efforts in the past to conserve the Huts and to control as best it can the activity of others at the site, demonstrates that it sees itself, and others see it, as the site's manager.

For this Conservation Plan to be a meaningful document in guiding the future activities at the site, the AAD accepts responsibility for the plan, and will do all that it legally and operationally can do to ensure that actions affecting the site, including its own, are in keeping with the Plan. Acceptance of responsibility for the Plan does not necessarily carry with it the acceptance by the AAD of the responsibility to itself provide the resources to implement the Plan - that is a matter to be determined by Government through its budget process and its establishment of priorities for the expenditure of funds available for works in Antarctica. The AAD recognises that there are opportunities for non- government funding for or participation in a conservation program, provided it is recognised that approval of the Minister responsible for Antarctic matters will be required for any conservation at the Cape Denison Site.

3.5.2 ANARE activity at Cape Denison Cape Denison is currently not an area of major scientific interest, compared with the other areas in the western part of the Australian Antarctic Territory. In 1986 a new accommodation unit was built about 800 m east of the Mawson's Hut valley, partly in anticipation of an expanded summer science program, and even a winter program, in the area (Betts 1987). However, since that date there would appear to have been little interest in scientific activity at Cape Denison, and no ANARE party has returned to the site since, though there have been three unsuccessful attempts to do so. There are no ANARE voyages planned for Commonwealth Bay in the foreseeable future.

While at one stage it was hoped that a recurrent science program would be available on which to "piggy-back" the Mawson's Huts conservation program, this would now seem to be an unlikely, or at least an unpredictable, prospect.

3.5.3 Statutory obligations While Project Blizzard has questioned the powers of the Australian Government to claim ownership or control of the Mawson's Huts site or contents (Blunt 1991 2:26-28), the Commonwealth is acting on its own legal advice that the huts are Australian Commonwealth property.

The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975: applies to Australia and its external territories. With regard to any place entered in the Register of the National Estate created under the Act, the Act (s.30) requires any Minister, Department or authority of Australia to:

1. inform the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) of any action that might affect a place to a significant extent, and give the Commission a reasonable opportunity to consider and comment on it, before such action is taken: and

2. not to take any action which adversely affects a place as part of the National Estate, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to that action, and if there is no such alternative, to take all reasonable steps to minimise the adverse affect.

Mawson's Huts were entered in the Register of the National Estate in 1978.

This means that the AAD and the Minister must seek the Commission's comments on any proposal which significantly affects Mawson's Huts, and must not approve any action which might adversely affect the hut if a feasible and prudent alternative exists. This extends to the funding, approval, sponsoring or licensing of any action. This would include approving the activities of a third party wishing to do anything affecting the huts or artefacts at the site.

The AAD has maintained close contact with the AHC, and has fulfilled its obligations under the Act to date.

The Antarctic Treaty: Australia is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which came into force in 1961. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings are meetings of the Consultative Parties (those signatories active in Antarctica), and in the past have been held at about two- yearly intervals. The Consultative Meetings make recommendations to the Consultative Party states concerning activities and controls over activities in Antarctica.

Mawson's Hut is identified as an Historic monument under the Treaty Consultative Parties list of Historic Monuments and Sites. The Recommendations of the First Consultative Meeting, I-IX, (1961) stated that:

1) Governments interested in any tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest should consult together whenever appropriate on their restoration or preservation.

2) Appropriate reports on the condition of such tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest as well as any restoration which might have been effected should be exchanged among governments.

3) Governments adopt all adequate measures to protect such tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest, from damage and destruction.

The Recommendations of the Sixth Consultative Meeting, VI-14, (1970) states : The Representative recommend to their Governments that:

1. They adopt all adequate measures to preserve and protect from damage the historic monumnents situated in the Antarctic Treaty area.

2. They arrange for each of these historic monuments to be appropriately marked with a notice indicating in English, French, Russian and Spanish languages that it is scheduled for preservation in accordance with the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty.

3. A list of historic monuments be prepared by consultation through diplomatic channels for consideration of the Seventh Consultative Meeting. At the Seventh Consultative Meeting (VII-9) (1972) a consolidated list was agreed. Item 12 on this list was Memorial Cross and Plaque at Cape Denison, and Item 13 was Mawson's Hut itself.

The Fourteenth Consultative Meeting (1987) report included the following observation: "Attention was drawn ... to the need to provide for continued and improved protection for those historic monuments that stand as witness to a significant human presence in the Antarctic: and which are an essential part of human activity in Antarctica, the only continent in which some of the original buildings constructed for human habitation still stand"

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (The Madrid Protocol), together with four annexes, was adopted in October 1991, at the conclusion of the 11th Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting. A fifth annex, relating to area protection and management (Annex V), was adopted at the 16th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. The Protocol has not yet entered into force, however, in the meantime all Treaty parties have agreed to comply with its provisions as far as possible.

Annex V provides for the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA). Such areas may include historic sites and monuments, in which case appropriate management plans must be prepared. Accordingly, it would be open to Australia to nominate the Mawson's Huts Historic Site under the provisions of the Annex. This Conservation Plan could form the basis of such a nomination.

Additionally to these proposed mechanisms, the protection of listed Historic Sites and Monuments is strengthened: clause 4 of Article 8 of Annex V stating that: "Listed Historic sites and Monuments shall not be damaged, removed or destroyed." This is taken to indicate that Australia would be in contravention of the Treaty to agree to the removal of Mawson's Hut from Antarctica. That option, proposed from time to time in the past, is not seen as being a supportable management option if the Protocol is ratified.

Given the proposed protective and co-operative measures available under the new ASPA and ASMA designations, the potential benefits for the conservation and management of Mawson's Huts Site of Australia seeking declaration of that site under one of those designations will be addressed in the Management Policy section of this Plan.

3.6 Tourism and non-ANARE visitors to the site

Tourism has been a reality at Mawson's Huts site for a number of years. Tourism is of two main types: organised commercial cruises and private adventure cruises. The first commercial cruise to visit the site was in 1981, when Lindblad Explorer spent one day there. In the summer of 1990/91 two commercial cruises spent time at Commonwealth Bay and landed parties at the site. One party ashore numbered approximately 40-50 individuals who roamed freely about the site, far in excess of the groups of 20 maximum guided visitors requested of the operator by the AAD prior to the cruise.

Private adventure tourism is increasing, the first known to have visited the site being a party led by Dr David Lewis, which spent three weeks there in 1982. This party dug its way into the main hut. Since that time a number of private parties have attempted to visit the site, and some have been successful, the latest being in 1992/3.

Visits by private parties will always be difficult or impossible to directly control at Commonwealth Bay. Tourist cruise visits are proving difficult to control in the AAT to date, and will probably slowly increase over the next decade. A report by a Parliamentary Committee (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts 1989) makes a number of recommendations concerning tourism and Mawson's Huts site in particular, but a Government response to this report has not been tabled at the time of writing (July1993). Given the nature of the Antarctic Treaty and the absence of recognition of sovereign control over landing on the continent, it appears unlikely that tourism can be banned from the continent or even particularly sensitive parts of it which are not close to officially-manned bases. Nor has it been demonstrated that such an action would be necessarily desirable. However, there are opportunities through the Treaty mechanisms to improve, through international co-operation, the setting of standards for tourist activities, and the monitoring of compliance with those standards. Control of tourism was further discussed by a special meeting of the Treaty parties in November 1992.

In the case of the management of Mawson's Huts, further development of visitor guidelines may be needed, and mechanisms to ensure compliance with guidelines by tourist operators need to be developed. One such mechanism used in the case of the New Zealand sector huts is the presence of a nominee of the NZ Antarctic Program on all cruise ships visiting the Ross Sea, ensuring adherence to guidelines for behaviour of visitors to historic sites. The New Zealanders also now charge tour operators a per-capita fee for passengers to visit the huts. Insistence on an official representative being present on ships visiting Mawson’s Huts Site, funded by the tour operator, would appear to be one of the few cost-effective and simple means of controlling tourist behaviour and monitoring their effect on the site.

3.7 Unknowns

Because of the special problems posed by the isolation and difficulty of access of the Mawson's Huts Site, there are many question regarding the physical condition of the huts and other remains, the micro-environmental conditions effecting them, and the likely effect of conservation activities upon them, which cannot be answered in the timeframe necessary to finalise a completely definitive Conservation Plan for the Site. The unique management environment also imposes a number of unknowns upon the management, and particularly the financing and regularity of access to the site, which cannot be settled in the context of this Plan.

These limitations effect the extent to which parts of this Plan are complete. For example, the condition of the elements of the site outlined in this Chapter is based in some instances on limited information, and will only be fully understood when the buildings have been more fully investigated. As indicated in the Policy Chapter (Chapter 4), this shortage of information, while undesirable, cannot be allowed to hold up the development of a plan which allows conservation action to occur up to the limits of confidence imposed by the incomplete data.

Some of the unknowns which will have an affect on the management and conservation of the site include:

3.7.1 Structural /condition /conservation information- insufficient information on the Main Hut: • sub floor structure • flooring condition • condition of lower walls • condition of concealed structural members • verandah conditions • condition of buried artefacts • fluctuations in the temperature and humidity regimes in the buildings • extent and impact of the meltwater infiltration • effect of ice in the main hut on structure and micro-environment • performance and impact of potential conservation materials over time on the site • the predicted life of objects and materials at the site- ie the point at which destruction of material is imminent if left on-site.

3.7.2 Logistical and financial unknowns: • the feasibility of gaining regular access to site via Dumont d"Urville • in the longer term, the prospect of Australian scientific or logistic priorities shifting emphasis to allow increasing frequency of ANARE visits to Cape Denison or the Eastern Sector • if there are more frequent visits, whether such visits will have the capacity to support adequate conservation work • the likelihood of being able to sustain funding levels, either through Government or public donations. • the costs of access to the site, which could vary greatly depending on the size of ship used, the involvement of ANARE logistics, or the use of air access via Dumont d'Urville.

3.7.3 Background information: There are a number of potential sources of historical and contextual information which have yet to be investigated, and which might provide information relevant to conservation decisions. These include: • oral information from people or relatives of members of AAE, BANZARE, visitors from other nations, AAD/ANARE personnel and expeditioners • documentary information from AAD files • documentary information from institutions associated with scientific and Antarctic activities • archives relating to AAE members and suppliers of materials/huts to the AAE • scrutiny of newspaper and journal articles contemporary with the expedition and with subsequent visits, for reports on the huts • comparative documentation concerning conservation efforts in the Arctic or by other Antarctic nations.

The preparation of a consolidated bibliography of material relating to the site, and a list of artefacts previously associated with the site would be a useful resource for ongoing conservation and research on the AAE and the site. CHAPTER 4.

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT POLICY

Definitions 4.1 Staging the development of Conservation Policy 4.2 Fabric and Setting 4.3 Use of the Site 4.4 Interpretation 4.5 Control of intervention in fabric 4.6 Management 4.6.1 Powers to decide on conservation and management issues: 4.6.2 Financing and control of conservation works: 4.6.3 Legislative responsibilities: 4.6.2 Control of non-ANARE visitors 4.7 On-site research 4.8 Monitoring of the condition of the fabric 4.9 Policy review and staging 4.10 Consequences of this policy for Mawson's Huts Site

Definitions: In this policy the following words have the associated meanings. They are based on the ICOMOS Burra Charter definitions, individualised for the Mawson's Huts Historic Site.:

• Place means the Mawson's Huts Historic Site, including all buildings and other works, together with associated artefacts and surroundings.

• Fabric means all the physical material of the place.

• Conservation means all the processes of looking after the place so as to retain its cultural significance.

• Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of a place.

• Preservation means maintaining the fabric of the place in its existing state and retarding deterioration • Restoration means returning the existing fabric of the place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material

• Reconstruction means returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new and old) into the fabric.

• Stabilisation means a process of keeping fabric intact and in a fixed position. It might incorporate elements of preservation, restoration and reconstruction.

4.1 Staging the development of Conservation Policy

In the preceding Chapter a number of unknowns were listed. These unknowns arise primarily because of the isolation, difficulty of access, and severe climatic conditions associated with the Mawson's Huts Historic Site. Because of the uncertainties resulting from the lack of critical information, it is not considered prudent or indeed possible to draft a definitive Conservation Policy at this point in time. It would be potentially damaging to the place to make decisions which materially affect its cultural significance when those decisions are based on insufficient or doubtful information. It is therefore proposed to develop a staged approach to the development of the Conservation Policy, which provides sufficient guidance for works and studies to proceed, but which sets limits to the extent of those works and studies and ties the extension of those limits to the availability of sound information on which to base conservation decisions.

Stage one of the Conservation Policy, developed as part of this Plan, will set policy for the long-term conservation of the site in general terms, but the detailed policy suitable for developing an implementation plan (and associated works plans) will be limited to the extent that the available information allows confidence in those more detailed conservation policy decisions.

4.2 Fabric and Setting

Based on the assessment of significance, and on the discussion of issues in Chapter 3, the policy for the long-term conservation of Mawson's Huts Historic Site is: 1. For the Mawson's Huts Historic Site: to maintain and preserve (stabilise) in situ the fabric introduced by man during the AAE and BANZARE , and to protect the natural landscape from lasting signs of human activity not associated with those expeditions. Restoration and reconstruction works are envisaged only where specifically refered to elsewhere in this policy.

This key policy will only be diverged from if: i) there is a conflict between the processes necessary to achieve the conservation of individual elements and the overall objective of the policy, such as a decision that the only conservation option for an item would require a new structure which would in the long-term diminish the significance of the whole site. In such a situation the manager would have to decide whether the intrusion of a new structure or the removal or loss of the item would have the greater effect on the significance of the place. ii) after full investigation of all options the conservation of an element of the site (an artefact or a building) cannot be achieved in situ. In such a situation the manager would have to decide whether the item had such significance in isolation of its association with the site that its removal for conservation was justified, or whether the item should be left in situ with the risk of its loss being accepted. iii) sufficient information is gathered to allow a decision to be made to reconstruct or restore an element of the site (ie to go beyond maintenance and preservation -"stabilisation"). In such a situation the manager would have to decide if the action proposed retained and enhanced the overall significance of the place, or diminished it, before altering the policy accordingly.

If the policy is to be altered to account for such a circumstance or for any other reason not foreseen in this policy, the manager will ensure that the policy is revised to reflect the new policy decisions and to retain consistency throughout. In the case of (ii) a new policy would have to be developed dealing with all aspects of the return to Australia of material from the site , including the question of subsequent return of the material to the site after conservation.

Access to the Site should be available to any visitor, so long as they comply with the Guidelines for Visitors issued by the manager. Extension of this policy to individual elements of the site is as follows:

2. Main Hut: Preserve and maintain. Stabilise the hut through appropriate action to repair material, replace material, or insert new material for the purposes of preservation in a way which does not diminish the significance of the hut. At this first stage of the policy development, the removal of ice, or action to prevent snow ingress, other than to the degree necessary to achieve stabilisation, is not envisaged. Access to the hut at this stage of the conservation plan should be limited to that necessary to carry out conservation works in accordance with this plan.

3. Absolute magnetic hut: Restore the hut, with reconstruction only where absolutely necessary, to consolidate the walls so they are stable. This will entail re-fixing wall frame members and re-attaching existing wall cladding to frame. The end result will be a stable, roofless, structure. Preserve and maintain in this condition.

4. Magnetograph House: Preserve and maintain. Stabilise by removing recent snow inside hut, re-fixing door so it is secure and snow proof, and overcladding eroded roof edge where failure of cladding is imminent. Access to the interior of the hut should be available to any visitor, so long as they comply with the Guidelines for Visitors issued by the Manager.

5. Transit Hut: Preserve and maintain. Stabilise as necessary, to maintain frame integrity and to retain connection of cladding to frame. Protect instrument column from continued weathering, in a way that will not create condensation and accelerated decay of timber.

6. Memorial Cross: Cross post to be preserved - cross arm not to be re-attached. Monitor condition of upright and cross arm in situ. Long- term policy is to investigate more fully the options for re-erection of the cross-arm, to implement a feasible and well supported option if one is found, or if re-erection is not feasible, to investigate the option of erecting a replica cross adjacent to surviving post, to re-gain the visual symbolism of the memorial.

7. Siting poles for magnetic observations: Monitor condition. Stabilise if an acceptable timber protective treatment is approved for use on the site.

8. Proclamation Pole: Preserve and maintain.

9. Artefact Scatters: Record, assess and actively pursue research to gain new information from the remains. Monitor artefacts in situ and develop a materials conservation program which conserves artefacts where this is necessary, with minimum disturbance to the artefact and others around it. Animal remains suspected of being deposited by humans, should be studied and protected if found to be significant.

10. Landscape: Remove from the Mawson's Huts Historic Site all post-BANZARE materials except those essential to the conservation of the significance of the place. Ensure all new constructions not essential for conservation and monitoring are located outside the historic site.

4.3 Use of the Site

In the first instance the policy for the Site as a whole will be;

11. The use of the site is primarily as a place to conserve the in situ remains of the AAE and BANZARE. The extent to which this includes facilitating the interpretation and presentation of the history of the site to visitors is dealt with elsewhere in this policy. All activities carried out at Cape Denison which might detract from or conflict with this use will be excluded from the Historic Site. Use of the site for the conduct of scientific research is encouraged, provided such research does not conflict with the conservation of the site.

4.4 Interpretation

The presentation of the site to visitors is an important part of the management of the place, as the greater the understanding visitors have of the significance the less likely are they to cause damage through ignorance. The policy on interpretation will be:

12. The presentation of interpretive material for visitors will be provided in such a way as to avoid damage to the historic fabric, or detracting from the visitor's appreciation of the site and landscape as seen by the members of the AAE and BANZARE. The replica plaques on the Memorial Cross and Proclamation Pole are interpretive devises. If the restoration of the Memorial Cross cross-arm is not feasible and prudent, the re-creation of a new Memorial Cross adjacent to the surviving cross post would be a long-term option compatible with this policy.

13. At this stage of the Plan it is premature to decide if any AAE material returned to Australia by the expedition or subsequently by visitors should be returned to the site. This question might be reviewed at a later stage when the long-term conservation treatment of the buildings is decided. It is desirable to document the location and ownership of all such material, for research purposes and to leave open the long-term option of returning them to the site or replicating them.

4.5 Control of intervention in fabric

Over-riding the other policy statements is a series of general policies concerning the intervention in the fabric of the place;

14. The fabric of the place is irreplaceable evidence. In carrying out other parts of this policy, disturbance of fabric must be limited to that essential to carry out the conservation works specified, or to that essential to investigate the place in order to develop further policy decisions. Disturbance of fabric for research purposes not connected with the conservation of the place should be limited to that essential to answer substantial research questions not able to be answered in any other way or at any other location, and must be guided by a research plan approved by the manager of the site.

15. Material and objects disturbed by conservation works or research activities should have their precise location recorded, and be re-located in that position after works have been completed, unless there are specific reasons, agreed with the manager or the manager's representative on site, why this is not feasible. Such material should be returned to Australia only if the object is at risk of imminent destruction if left at the site, and the significance of the object in its own right outweighs its value as a component of the site. Such a decision is regarded as a serious one, and should be approved by the manager or the manager's representative on the expedition.

16. Removal of significant fabric from the site in accordance with this policy should only occur if there is a prior arrangement for the conservation and housing of such artefacts, that ownership upon return to Australia is clear, and that the manager agrees to these arrangements. Objects removed to Australia for conservation action should be returned to the site unless this places the object at unacceptable risk.

17. Decisions about when to replace original fabric in a building with new material should be based on the principle that no material should be removed unless there is beyond reasonable doubt the probability that the material concerned might fail, or might allow other parts of the building fabric to fail, or in some other way adversely affects the conservation of the building or associated artefacts. This decision should be based on relevant professionally competent judgement.

18. Where there is a conflict between the requirements of the materials conservation of materials and objects, and the objectives of other parts of this policy, the manager should gather the informed opinions of as wide a range of interested parties as possible before coming to a decision. The primary concern of the manager should be maximising the conservation of the Mawson's Huts Historic Site.

4.6 Management

4.6.1 Powers to decide on conservation and management issues:

19. The manager of the site is the Australian Antarctic Division on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories. The powers of the manager to make decisions on-site may be delegated to a responsible and fully briefed representative who is a member of a party working at the site, and who will be an appropriate practicing conservation professional if the decisions to be made include ones affecting the fabric or conservation of the site. The nature and extent of the decision making powers of the AAD representation will be clearly defined before the representative leaves Australia. The respective powers of the AAD representative, the expedition leader (if that is a different person), and other members of the expedition will be clearly defined before the party leaves Australia. Every AAD or ANARE party visiting Commonwealth Bay (whether carrying out conservation works or not) will include a representative of the AAD with specific powers to direct the party's activities as they impinge upon this conservation policy.

4.6.2 Financing and control of conservation works:

20. The Plan recognises that funding of the conservation program may include public monies, private funds, or a combination of both.

21. The manager shall not approve the commencement of any works or expenditure in relation to the conservation or management of the Site which:

i) run counter to this Plan

ii) do not have guarantied funding to see the Proposed works concluded;

iii) are not able to be completed comfortably within one season, or in the case of multi-year projects, which cannot be staged in such a way as to leave the site in at least as stable a condition at the end of each season as it was at the beginning of that season.

22. The manager shall as appropriate pursue all avenues open to it to further the funding and logistical support for the ongoing implementation of this Plan.

4.6.3 Legislative responsibilities:

23. The manager shall comply with the requirements of the Australian Heritage Commission Act in its pursuit of this Plan.

24. The manager shall investigate further the benefits of seeking Antarctic Specially Protected Area or Antarctic Specially Managed Area designation under the Madrid Protocol, when Australia ratifies the protocol. 4.6.4 Control of non-ANARE visitors

25. The AAD will make every effort as appropriate to ensure that parties visiting the site have adequate briefing materials and clear guidelines for behaviour appropriate to this Plan, and agree to abide by them. The Guidelines for Visitors are provided at Attachment 1, and will be amended from time to time to take account of changes in the conservation and management status of the site. The AAD is encouraged to provide a member of staff or identify another representative of the Commonwealth Government to act as its representative on cruise vessels operating out of or into Australian ports, on a cost-recovery basis. Where appropriate the AAD may agree with the visit organiser to appoint a member of a non-ANARE party to act as a guide and will brief that person on the Conservation Plan and visitor guidelines, to ensure the compliance of the party with those guidelines.

4.7 On-site research

26. Research will be actively pursued to address the "unknowns" identified in Chapter 3 of this Plan. This research, and research proposed for non-conservation reasons, will comply with policies 13-18 above.

4.8 Monitoring of the condition of the fabric

27. A program to monitor the condition of the fabric of the place, and the environmental conditions relevant to materials conservation, will be instigated, to run parallel to the works program. The Manager will determine who how such a monitoring program shall be administered, and by whom.

4.9 Policy review and staging

28. This policy will be reviewed when new information is available which allows the conservation policy to be revised or re-directed. It is envisaged that the first review would take place following the first work program carried out at the site in accordance with this Plan.

4.10 Consequences of this policy for Mawson's Huts Site The implementation of this policy will have the following effect. It will:

• ensure the stabilisation of the various elements of the site, so maximising their long-term protection.

• commence a program of on-site research which may allow longer term conservation decisions (new Policies) which go beyond preservation and maintenance.

• set the ground rules for the treatment and control of materials and objects at the site, and the basis for their return to Australia.

• clearly establish the basis for the AAD's management of the site. CHAPTER 5.

IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY

5.1. Fabric and Setting 5.1.1 Mawson’s Huts Historic site: 5.1.2 Main Hut: 5.1.3 Absolute Magnetic Hut: 5.1.4 Magnetograph House 5.1.5 Transit Hut 5.1.6 Memorial Cross: 5.1.7 Artefact Scatters 5.2. Interpretation 5.3. Intervention in Fabric 5.4. Funding and timing of works 5.5. On-site research and monitoring 5.6. Control of visitors 5.7. Legislative responsibilities 5.8. Policy review

This chapter indicates how Stage One of the Conservation Policy for Mawson's Huts Historic Site, as stated in Chapter 4, will be implemented. In many cases the detailed Works Plans, detailing specific actions and materials for each component of the implementation will be Appendices to this Plan, to be developed in detail by the conservation architect and others directly involved in works planning. The Implementation Plan outlined here is of necessity on a less specific level than the Works Plans will be.

Where appropriate, Implementation statements will be linked to specific Policies.

5.1. Fabric and setting

5.1.1 Mawson’s Huts Historic Site: The AAD will develop a strategy and timetable for the removal of non-AAE/BANZARE structures from the Historic Site, the identification of and a removal strategy for non-AAE/ BANZARE artefacts in the Historic Site and a policy of not locating structures in the Historic Site other than those required for conservation or short-term scientific purposes as determined by the Policy in Chapter 4. When developed, the implementation of these policies and strategies will replace this paragraph of the Implementation Plan.

5.1.2 Main Hut: The details of the stabilisation of the Main Hut will to a large extent be developed and implemented by the AAD's representative on- site, operating within the broad context of the Conservation Policy and this Implementation Plan. Action envisaged in Stage One of Implementation includes:

• Carrying out all works with the intention of stabilising the structure. "Improvement" of the structure, by straightening walls, cosmetic repairs or any other action not essential for its conservation is not to be a part of Stage One Implementation.

• Identification of failing elements of the building where urgent repairs, reinforcing or replacement is required, and the carrying out of that work. Known elements requiring action include:

- four collar ties in Workshop roof - the Works Plans and on-site assessment will determine if these need repairing or replacing with identical materials or an alternate material such as wire cable to stabilise the structure. The extent to which parts of the ceiling, rafters and wall plates will have to be disturbed or stabilised as a consequence of this action will largely be an on-site decision. Determination of means of access, via doorway or skylights, will be determined on the spot.

- roof platform in Living section: removal of snow and ice from above the platform seems to be necessary, to reduce the load which has led to structural failure. Failed collar ties, and platform joists and bearers should be repaired or replaced. The extent to which parts of the ceiling, rafters and wall plates will have to be disturbed or stabilised as a consequence of this action will largely be an on-site decision. If time does not allow for repair or replacement work, the props put in place by Project Blizzard should be checked for effectiveness and improved if required. The decision whether to reconstruct the platform itself will be left up to on-site decision. If snow penetration in the relevant areas of the roof cannot be reduced, it may be decided that the platform should not be replaced during Stage One. - hip rafters: where split these should be repaired, where possible by the use of fish-plates. Determination of means of access, via doorway or skylights, will be determined on the spot.

- reduction of snow penetration: While the removal of snow and ice and the sealing of the roof is not envisaged as a part of Stage One Implementation, there are specific locations where the reduction of snow penetration would assist in the stabilisation of the structure. The key problem areas appear to be where snow loads build up on elements such as the roof platform and rafters, on some internal shelving, and inside the void between roof and ceiling boards. The source of snow penetration resulting in these specific snow loads should be identified, and where possible action taken to reduce or prevent snow penetration at those points. This might include action to seal skylights (either the skylights themselves or their covers), replace or over-lay some ridge cappings and valley gutters, and seal the chimney hole. It is not envisaged that decisions about sealing the roof as a whole should be taken in Stage One.

• Excavation of snow and ice will be undertaken only to the extent necessary to carry out conservation works, to investigate the fabric to support decisions for Stage Two works, and to install environmental and structural monitoring equipment. Such excavation will be undertaken by or supervised by an archaeologist where excavation involves areas not previously excavated in the last decade. The presence of a materials conservator during such work is highly desirable.

5.1.3 Absolute Magnetic Hut: As outlined in Policy 3, action should be taken to restore the hut, with limited reconstruction to provide a secure frame and fixing for the remaining cladding. It is intended that the end result will be the return of the existing fabric to a condition where the frame is stable and the remaining cladding is firmly attached to it. It is not intended to add to the cladding or to reconstruct a roof for the hut.

It might be necessary to excavate snow and ice to allow this work to occur, in which case this work should be supervised by an archaeologist.

5.1.4 Magnetograph House: Specific actions should include: • Remove snow and ice which has entered the hut over the last few years. Great caution must be taken to avoid disturbing in-situ artefacts, and the fragile wall covering of tarred paper. Such work should be undertaken or at least supervised by an archaeologist, and the involvement of a materials conservator is highly desirable.

• Refix the top stable door so that it can be securely closed, yet can be opened by visitors and secured again by them when they leave. Existing fixings should be retained and used where this is possible.

• Protect exposed and eroded edge of the roof/wall junction on the southern side of the hut with boards, to prevent failure of the building at this point.

• If an appropriate adhesive which satisfies both conservation and climatic requirements can be identified, spot-glueing of the tar paper interior wall and ceiling cladding should be carried out where the paper has pulled away from the walls and ceiling. If such an adhesive has not yet been tested, tests should be carried out with a view to resolving the adhesive repair of the paper in Stage Two.

5.1.5 Transit Hut: On-site inspection of condition may indicate minor stabilisation work needed to maintain the stability of the frame and the attachment of the cladding timbers. A means of protecting the instrument post and its writing from further erosion should be devised before the first field party visit, and implemented in Stage One.

5.1.6 Memorial Cross: Investigate the feasibility of restoring the cross arm to the upright, determining the capacity of the upright to bear the resulting wind-load, and the cross-arm connection to bear the stresses imposed upon it. If this investigation suggests that restoration is not prudent, then consideration should be given to erecting a replica cross on the lee side of the existing cross upright.

5.1.7 Artefact Scatters: Record artefacts which are exposed and monitor condition. 5.2. Interpretation

• Check condition of existing Visitors Book, and leave a new book if necessary. The existing Visitors Book should be left onsite, and its contents copied for AAD records. The Visitors Book should be kept in the Granholm Hut at this time.

• Some additional interpretive material, giving the history of the Site, the AAD's Cape Denison Map, and a copy of the the Conservation Plan, should be left in plain view inside the Granholm Hut, to provide background information for visitors.

5. 3. Intervention in fabric

• Any intervention in fabric, including the disturbance of building materials, decisions about artefacts, and materials conservation decisions, will be in accordance with Conservation Policies 14 -18. It is not intended that any artefacts or building materials would be returned to Australia as a result of Stage One. However, the AAD's representative on-site will have the power to make decisions in keeping with the policy.

• In formulating the Stage One works program, the issue will be resolved of where to store, on-site, any building materials or artefacts disturbed in the course of conservation and investigation works, which cannot be returned to their original locations.

5.4. Funding and timing of works

• The AAD, as manager, will pursue any appropriate funding options, and will approve works which are in accordance with this Plan and for which adequate funding is available.

This Implementation Plan is written in the context of the establishment of the Mawson's Huts Conservation Committee, a body intending to raise funds for conservation of the Site. At the time of writing, the Government's response to the Parliamentary Committee on Antarctic Tourism has not been tabled, so the extent of Government funding available in the short-term for conservation has not been determined.

• Timing of Stage One implementation is dependent at this time on the success of the Mawson's Huts Conservation Committee's fund raising. If this is successful it is intended to carry out Stage One works in the summer of 1993/94. Stage Two works would follow in 1994/95.

If a short visit to the Site with French assistance is forthcoming in summer 1992/93, a shortened works plan based on Stage One Implementation will be developed in late 1992. The full Stage One Works Plan would be developed in 1993.

5.5. On-site research and monitoring

Research and monitoring to provide structural information listed at 3.7.1 will be considered in the formulation of the works plan for Stage One. Research and Monitoring particularly relevant to Stage One Implementation is as follows:

• identification, research and monitoring of the meltpool / drainage problems with a view to formulating recommendations for Stage Two works

• investigation of the condition of fabric hidden by snow and ice

• implementation of a monitoring program, possibly utilising automatic recording and satellite transmission of data, of environmental conditions within the main hut over time, with a view to recommending the retention or removal of ice in the hut in Stage Two.

• monitoring and experimentation with environmental controls and chemical treatments to deal with mould and fungal growth

• experimentation with timber treatments to identify an acceptable treatment to reduce weathering.

• no research for non-conservation related purpose has yet been identified as part of Stage One works, but any proposals received by the manager should be assessed in accordance with Policy 14.

5.6. Control of visitors

• The AAD will make every effort to ensure that all parties, both ANARE and tourist, have adequate briefings and/or briefing materials and clear guidelines for behaviour at the site, and that the parties agree to those guidelines.

• As a consequence of the forthcoming Treaty parties meeting onTourism, and as an outcome of Stage One, the AAD will decide whether the existing Visitor Guidelines are adequate and will improve them if this is necessary.

5.7. Legislative responsibilities

• The AAD will continue to comply with the Australian Heritage Commission Act in its decision making relating to Mawson's Huts Historic Site.

• When Australia ratifies the Madrid protocol, the AAD will investigate further the benefits for the conservation of Mawson's Huts Historic Site in seeking Antarctic Special Protected Area or Antarctic Specially Managed Area designation for the Site.

5.8. Policy review

• The Conservation Policy ( and the consequent Implementation Plan) will be reviewed when new information is available, stemming from new documentary research, on-site investigations, or general developments in conservation philosophy or technology. Regardless of whether it is reviewed before the outcomes of Stage One, it will be reviewed at that time. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Allom, R. 1988, Mawson's Huts, Antarctica - Statement of Significance, unpublished report to Department of Science, Canberra.

Amdrup, G. 1902, “Beretning om Kystexpeditionen langs Gronlands Ostkyst 1900” Meddelelser om Gronland 27:183-271.

Australian Antarctic Division. 1991, A window on Antarctica - An introduction to the Corporate Plan of the Australian Antarctic Division, AAD, Hobart.

Betts, M. 1987, ...... ANARE News, March 1987: 3.

Blunt, W. 1991, Mawson's Huts, Antarctica- a conservation proposal, 3 vols, Project Blizzard, Hornsby.

Burch, W 1989, “When does unsightly rubbish become an historic artefact?”, Aurora, Australia’s Antarctic Magazine, 8 (3): 2-3.

Chester, J. 1986, Going to extremes - Project Blizzard and Australia's Antarctic heritage, Doubleday, Sydney.

Dick, L. 1991, “The Fort Conger shelters and vernacular adaptation to the High Arctic” Society for the study of architecture in Canada Bulletin 16 (1):13-23.

Greely, A.W. 1886, Three years of Arctic service: an account of the Lady Franklin Bay expedition of 1881-1884, R. Bentley and Son, London.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. 1989, Tourism in Antarctica, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Hughes, J. 1988, “The problems of preservation in a polar climate - the conservation of Sir Douglas Mawson’s Huts at Commonwealth Bay, Antarctica” Australian Institution for the Conservation of Cultural Materials Bulletin 14 (4):1-32.

Hughes, J. 1991, “In situ Conservation versus relocation: the case of Sir Douglas Mawson’s Huts in Antarctica” Historic Environment 8 (1&2):19-24.

Hughes, J. 1992, "Mawson's Antarctic huts and tourism: a case for on- site preservation", in Polar Record, 28 (164):37-42.

Kish, G. 1973, North-East Passage: Adolf Erik Nordenskiold, his life and times Nico Israel, Amsterdam.

Lazer, E. 1985, Mawson's Huts interim conservation report, Vol 5 Part A- Archaeological Report 1984/85, Unpublished report to Project Blizzard.

Ledingham, R et al (undated), Commonwealth Bay Report - 18 January to 26 February 1978, Antarctic Division Technical Memorandum No 69, unpublished report.

Leslie, A. 1879, The Arctic voyages of Adolf Erik Nordenskiold Macmillan, London.

Markham, C 1986, Antarctic Obsession - a personal narrative of the origins of the British National Antarctic Expedition 1901-1904, Bluntisham Books, Norfolk.

Marshall, D. 1987, Mawson's Huts - Commonwealth Bay, Structural and materials performance, unpublished report to Antarctic Historic Sites and Monuments Advisory Committee, Australian Antarctic Division.

McGowan, A. 1986, Mawson's Huts interim conservation report, Vol 5 Part B - Archaeological Report 1985/86, Unpublished report to Project Blizzard.

McGowan, A. 1988, "Historical Archaeology at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, Antarctica", in Polar Record 24(149): 101-110. Pearson, M. 1989, "When does an historic place become a museum object?" Aurora - Australia's Antarctic Magazine, 8 (4) :7-8.

Pearson, M. 1987, Report for the Antarctic Historic Sites and Monuments Advisory Committee on a visit to Mawson's huts, commonwealth Bay, 25-29 December 1986, unpublished report to AHSMAC, Australian Antarctic Division.

Pearson, M. 1992, "Expedition Huts in the Antarctic - 1899-1917", Polar Record, 28(167):261-276.

Peary, R.E. 1898, Northward over the great ice, Methuen, London.

Peary, R.E. 1917, Secrets of polar travel, The Century Co, New York.

Swan, R.A. 1961, Australia in the Antarctic , Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. APPENDIX 1

Mawson’s Huts Historic Site Conservation Plan

YEAR ONE - DRAFT WORKS PROGRAM

This Works Program has been designed by a number of members of the Mawson’s Huts Conservation Committee’s Technical Committee, namely Andrew Jackson, William Blunt, Janet Hughes, Malcolm Curry and Michael Pearson, and the Committee’s conservation architect, Peter Marquis-Kyle. The Works Program is based on the Draft Mawson’s Huts Historic Site Conservation Plan, and is consistent with the policy and implementation recommendations of that Plan.

At the time of writing, it is not clear what the duration and scale of the first year’s visit (initially planned for 1993/94) might be, so the works projects indicated here may need to be adjusted at a later date to be achievable in the time-frame and with the human resources actually provided. It is therefore not certain that all items in the Works Program will be completed in the first year. Where appropriate, priority works have been identified. It is recognised in the Plan that decisions on many aspects of the works Program will have to be made on the spot by the works team, in a way which ensures consistency with the agreed conservation policy.

1. WORKS - MAIN HUT

1.1 Collar ties in Workshop Roof (Priority 1)

Duplicate failed collar ties with mild steel cable, tensioned by screw buckles. Fixing will be by way of prefabricated galvanised steel connection brackets attached to the exposed rafters. A range of brackets have to be designed and fabricated before departure to ensure flexibility in solving fixing conditions on the spot. Some adjustment of the brackets may be required on site, so appropriate tools and galvanising paint need to be included in equipment. Mild steel is recommended for these purposes due to its easier modification on-site than, say, stainless steel. The use of cable is recommended because of the policy to achieve stabilisation with the minimum of intervention, the relative ease of getting cable into the workshop space compared with timber ties, and the likely ease of erection and flexibility of this solution. It is intended that the failed timber ties will be left in situ.

Installation of the cables will require the digging of narrow slots through the ice/ snow mound in the centre of the workshop, but this is not expected to contain artefacts at this height above the floor and distance from shelving. Attachment of the fixing brackets must be decided on the spot, but should result in the absolute minimum of disturbance of ceiling lining, rafters and roof cladding consistent with achieving installation.

Access may be best achieved through the western skylight, though the decision may be made to establish access through a tunnel branch from the main access tunnel.

Materials required:

• mild steel cable , 4x 4?m lengths • cold galvanizing paint • assorted mild steel fixing brackets for cables (to be designed and fabricated) • screw buckles

1.2 Storage Platform in Living Room (Priority 1)

Work is required to remove the snow-load from the platform, to mend or duplicate the collar ties which are integral with the platform and check that they are still acting as ties, and decide if it is desirable to duplicate the beams of the platform.

The snow from above the platform should be excavated with extreme care due to the possibility of there being artefacts on the platform. If the skylights are able to be made snow-proof it may not be necessary to remove the platform itself, but it may be desirable to duplicate the platform beams which may give the posts added lateral support. These decisions can only be made on the spot, and should be based on the aim of ensuring structural stability with minimum intervention. The collar ties on the north and east have fractured or deflected. The fixings of these and the other two collar ties with the roof structure should be inspected, and if they have failed a decision has to be made whether they can be effectively re-fixed, or if they should be duplicated with steel cable ties to reinstate effective roof-truss strength. If the northern and eastern collar ties are still fixed or can be re-fixed, the decision has to be made whether the ties can be repaired so as to ensure continued strength. Inspection of the collar tie fixings will require the excavation of snow to gain access. The extent of the work necessary to re- establish roof strength can only be made on the spot.

Materials required:

• mild steel cable , 4x5?m lengths • cold galvanizing paint • assorted mild steel fixing brackets for cables (to be designed and fabricated) • oregon timber two lengths 110 x 58 x 2650 • oregon timber two lengths 100 x 58 x 2650 • fish plates for fishing timbers 75 x 50, coated and pre-drilled. • screw buckles for cable tensioning

1.3. Hip rafters - Living room (Priority 1)

The hip rafters above the platform have split and would seem to require repaired by applying fish plates to guarantee continued strength. The decision on the need for such strengthening should be made on the spot. If the splits appear to be old and the rafters retain strength despite the splits, further action may not be needed. Access to the hip rafters would be greatly simplified if removal of snow from above the central platform is first achieved, and should therefore follow the work at 2. above.

Materials required:

• fish plates and bolts for fishing timbers 9”x 1”, coated and pre-drilled.

1.4. Skylights (Priority 1) The aim is to reduce the ingress of snow by sealing the main sources, failed skylights. Reglaze skylights where glass is broken and frames are intact. Where glass is cracked only, attempt to seal in manner to be determined with conservation advice before season commences. Refix skylight covers after repairs to glass. On eastern skylight on living room, where the skylight is missing and boards have been nailed over the opening as a cover, ensure that the boarding is snow proof, and if not replace timbers or seal gaps.

Materials required:

• replacement glass (3-4 mm float glass) and glass cutter • glazing putty • glass sealant for cracks as recommended by conservator. • Spare lengths of t&g boarding • timber beading to replace broken beadings

1.5. Ridge capping and other roof works (Priority 2)

Failure of the ridge capping in some areas is possibly a current source of snow ingress, and is certainly a long-term worry as an access point to snow penetration of the cavity between roof boards and ceiling linings. Ridge cappings will be replaced, where they are missing, with black steel sheet (held down with battens and screw-fixed?). New ridge cappings should be butted up to, or overlapped by 300mm, surviving cappings, depending on circumstances, or laid over old capings if they have failed to be effective. Such decisions on installation must rest with the works team leader.

The valley gutter between the Workshop and Living Room should be protected with a steel "V" shaped gutter, screw fixed.

Ridge cappings and valley gutters should be fixed over closed cell foam rubber to effect a seal and protect original timbers. (?) The edges of the steel capings and gutters should not be rolled, so as to simplify working with the material on- site, but the team should be equipped to roll or crimp the edges for added strength if that proves to be useful.

The hole left by the collapse of the chimney in the Living room has been poorly sealed. It is necessary to cover it with steel sheet, screw fixed, to prevent snow penetration. The decision to remove or cover earlier repairs, and the need for the insertion of a foam seal, will be made on the spot.

Materials Required:

• 1.6mm thick steel sheet in 305 x750 lengths, bent on long centre line x 60 sheets. For ridge cappings • 1.6 mm thick steel sheet in 400x750 lengths, bent on long centre line x 10 sheets. For valley gutters and spare sheets. • 60 metres of 750mm wide closed cell foam • posidrive screws - assorted lengths • 1.6 mm galvanised steel sheet in 1000x500 lengths, x 2 sheets for chimney sealing.

1.6. Excavation of snow and ice (Priority 1 for works to proceed)

Reference has been made to some excavation of snow and ice in describing individual works. Two methods of removal of ice could be considered at the time of the works. One is to remove ice via a skylight, placing a temporary boxing around the skylight frame to protect it, and laying boards down the slope of the roof. This method may be suitable for excavations in the Living hut for example, but may prove to be too difficult to achieve effectively.

The second method is to open the earlier tunnel into the building from the north- west entrance. If the tunnel dug by Blizzard is still open, 1-2 days should be allowed to clear it. Blizzard placed timber boards across the ends of the tunnel and at the doorway between the Workshop and Living room when they left in 1986.

The proposition of re-inforcing the tunnel with some form of plastic tube (such as airconditioning ducting or modern drainage arching) has been suggested, and should be further developed before departure. If it can be done it may reduce the infiltration of snow into the tunnel, and substantially reduce digging time each season.

Snow and ice, if it has to be removed from the hut, can be dragged out on plastic sledges. A suggestion that a commercial vacuum system might be used should be further investigated before the season commences. In snow excavated from exploratory trenches and pits, or holes dug to gain access to specific elements of the building for works purpose, may be able to be back-filled into previously opened holes, reducing the need to remove snow from the hut, and re-stabilising the excavated holes.

All snow and ice excavation should be discussed with the archaeologist and conservator in the party before commencing, to judge how likely it is to disturb artefacts or building fabric, and whether direct archaeological supervision is required. A policy on treatment and storage of artefacts and displaced building materials will be developed before the season commences.

1.7 Information gathering program

A program of monitoring and investigations still needs to be developed for this season. Elements of such a program might include:

• Installation of data-loggers to record temperature, humidity, movements and stress and perhaps other information yet to be determined in various parts of the Main Hut. Some information would be returned with the party, other information would be recorded throughout the year and retrieved be a subsequent party. (Priority 2)

• monitoring and sampling of fungal growth which is affecting timber. (Priority 2)

• recording deflection in the building, to compare with earlier recordings in an attempt to monitor movements over time. This may be by photographic, electronic or manual means. (Priority 3)

• gaining access to areas of the hut previously not accessible to check on condition, detect potential or real problems, and set up base-line information for monitoring over time. this might include as an example access to the wall/floor junction between Living room and Workshop and along eastern wall. (Priority 3)

• Re-survey of test objects placed by Project Blizzard's archaeologist to monitor the movement of arefacts outside the hut. (Priority 3)

• on the spot analysis of conservation condition and problems facing artefacts outside the hut. (Priority 3)

• There are a number of research proposals likely to be put forward which do not in themselves directly link as yet to the conservation program (such as testing of materials and treatments). These proposals should be supported if they do not require substantial time commitment and do not hamper or run counter to the Conservation Policy and works program (Priority 3)

2. WORKS - ABSOLUTE MAGNETIC HUT (Priority 3)

As the Hut is in ruins and in threat of total disintegration, it is intended to stabilise the structure by tying the remaining frame and cladding back to a stable frame. Further work is required on the proposed works by the architect, but one approach is outlined here.

The existing frame corner and middle posts will be used as part of the new frame if they retain sufficient strength and form - if they do not, new corner posts and middle-posts will be inserted (NW post), or placed so as to duplicate existing posts and the existing posts tied back to them. Top and bottom plates and mid-rails should be re-fixed to the posts, being replaced with new timbers if they are missing or damaged beyond use. Cladding should then be held against the plates and mid-rails by battens screwed on from the outside. Additional cross-bracing may be required to give stability. The need for additional new rails below the mid-rail to which shorter boards can be attached will have to be decided on the spot.

Snow and ice excavation should occur only to the extent required to stabilise the hut.

Materials Required:

• assorted lengths of timber 75x50 • non-ferrous screws • 4 posts 100x75x2000

3. WORKS - MAGNETOGRAPH HOUSE (Priority 2)

External - screw-fix a board along the edge of the upper southern wall, to protect from corrasion.

The door requires re-fixing. All or parts of the door jamb may need to be replaced to support the re-hung door satisfactorily, but this decision can only be made on the spot. The objective is to re-fix both halves of the door so they are operable - if visitor access is to be allowed, the bottom door should be able to be opened to sufficient width to allow it to be used, rather than have visitors climb over the closed lower door. New hinges are likely to be needed, and a snow proof seal is required when the doors are closed. A toggle door latch may be required to enable the door to operate freely.

Snow which is reported to have entered the hut should be removed with care not to disturb the tar paper lining and clothes and artefacts lying on the floor. Tar paper which is torn and hanging loose may be repaired by attaching timber battens over the paper. New tar paper may be used with care and discretion to repair badly damaged areas.

Materials required:

• board 25x250 x ? long to protect southern wall/roof junction • roll of tar paper • timber to replace door jamb • new door hinges and toggle latch

4. Memorial Cross (Priority 3)

The advice of an engineer is required before final plans are made for the cross. The work party considered the idea of strengthening the cross with steel channelling, and using that to take the stress of re-erecting the cross-arm to have merit and this will be further considered with engineering advice. If advice provides sufficient confidence in the outcome, works to implement this proposal could be considered for this season. Alternately, further information from the site may be required before the engineering effects of the proposal can be judged. 5. Transit Hut (Priority 3)

Ad hoc stabilisation action may be required on the spot, but no major works are planned for this season. A method of protecting the instrument post and its writing needs to be devised before the party leaves, and if a solution is found it may be implemented this season.