Antarctica . Man Ntarctica . Man
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AAANTARCTICAANTARCTICA . MAN DISCOVERING THE UNKNOWN RAYMOND BURKE Raymond Burke Notes regarding this text This is only a draft of my work and as such is subject to change in future drafts before a final text is written. Of course, though I have checked my sources, mistakes can be made and will be hopefully rectified in the future. This work at the moment is generalised in the sense that the sources are mostly from my own stock and are varied to indicate the breadth and interest from different fields of study and topics, including guidebooks, the internet, unpublished work and newspapers. My intent is to introduce more primary and specific sources in the future including interviews, library work and more detailed studies, especially from the Scott Polar Research Institute and the British Antarctic Survey, both in Cambridge. This text is single spaced due to limited time and resources with interspersed illustrations included with notations and sources. Put down on paper, my ideas may seem disconnected, but I am working toward a whole and cohesive theme, as described in my preface. This draft is only the beginning. I hope, above all, that you find this work a though-provoking experience. Enjoy. Ray Burke 01.08.02 Third edition December 2006. Raymond Burke PREFACE Why Antarctica? It all started with a daydream during a lecture while staring at a map of the world. I noticed the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula snaking up toward Tierra del Fuego and for some reason my gaze shifted toward Australia and New Zealand and then wondered which of the two distances was furthest. But it got me thinking as to if anyone had actually discovered Antarctica before 1820, in pre-Columbian times, or in more remote periods. And if not, then why not? This question is quite important. It is important in that we ask such questions and address it in a scientific way and learn from the investigating process and the answer. As scientist Richard Feynman stated in regards to scientists: We [scientists] know that all our statements are approximate statements with different degrees of certainty; that when a statement is made, the question is not whether it is true or false but rather how likely it is to be true or false (Feynman 2000: 111) He added that ‘There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt ’ (Feynman 2000: 112). I have doubts that parts of Antarctica were never inhabited by man at some point in history and that it is a duty to question the evidence until we have a definite either way. Just because we now know that there is a frozen continent to the south, ancient men would not have known. He would not have necessarily stopped exploring for more resources and expanding, because an ocean of unknown extent lay before him. Think of the Polynesians' voyages through the Pacific. How on Earth did they discover some of the islands off the beaten (sea) tracks? Did Polynesians sail as far as the ice pack as myths suggest? Or for that matter, the Aborigines or other cultures? Our idea of what ancient man could and did achieve is mostly centred on our own modern perceptions, interpretations that are as right or as wrong or as biased as the next. So, before Bellinghausen's 1820 discovery, there is no mention of possible previous discoveries due not to the lack of evidence, but to preconceived notions. Things can change. The ‘itch to civilize' may have led to a‘galvanizing [of] human ambition' (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 60), driving man to seek out new territory, ‘because it is there' , which may have led to early discoveries of sub-Antarctic islands and of Antarctica itself. My work will be challenging and the varying sections will reflect this. Thus: Part 1 briefly charts the Antarctic region's history and environment; Part 2 searches for the possible origins and reasons of the people who travelled to Antarctica and how they arrived there; Part 3 analyses what, if any, archaeological record there could be with Part 4 examining how technology could be used to discover potential sites and artefacts; Part 5 investigates where potential sites could be located, and Part 6 studies the law in regard to excavation and finds in Antarctica. I believe that these aspects are important in understanding Antarctica and its possible early discovery. My theme may provide a future framework for further work, both academic and in the field. It will concentrate on Part 2 mapping man's possible movements to and from Australia and southern South America, areas I believe to be intrinsically linked with my investigations. This also necessitates a look at the history of early Paleo-American colonisation. Parts 3, 4 and 5 will underline the multidisciplinary aspects of my work and reveal to critics the depth and nature of this undertaking and the means and justification for my work. Also asked is, if man did find Antarctica why did he not stay? Why are there no prehistoric colonies on Antarctica? Why are there no Antarcticans? Someone, somewhere had to say ‘what is out there?’ Throughout history, man's inventiveness has presupposed the notion of prehistoric Einsteins, those who discovered the means toward advancement, but what about the prehistoric Columbus', and those who advanced the means of exploration? Were there such men who discovered Antarctica and what became of them? The Hubble telescope can see into the depths of space, we can understand the physics behind and can demonstrate teleportation, quantum computers, anti-gravity and fusion yet do not know the secrets of the last continent. ‘Where is the proof? ' some may ask. Archaeology is not necessarily about proof. It is not a mathematical formula with absolutes. I am addressing the theoretical possibility of ancient man travelling to Antarctica. As archaeologist Ian Hodder says, echoing Feynman: Whereas the primary aim used to be to say something about the past which was ‘true ’, the emphasis has shifted towards saying something interesting and meaningful (Hodder 1999: 14). The present data, to my knowledge, while not proving that ancient man travelled to Antarctica, also does not disprove that man found his way to Antarctica. Proof is merely a point in flux, until the next probable ‘truth' comes along. Archaeology, it is argued, is in a state of flux and should reflect that in the way theory, data and interpretation are treated (Hodder 1999). Proof would be nice, but in the end it is of no concern. This work is a voyage intended to broaden horizons and explore man's propensity for ingenuity, discovery and survival. Ray Burke November 2006 Raymond Burke CONTENTS List of Illustrations Preface Acknowledgments Part 11:: Natural History and Environment Geographic and geologic regions Climatic processes Zoological and botanical Island densities of Pacific and Southern Oceans Part 2: Voyages of Discovery Reasons for migration Modern explore r’s efforts to find Antarctica Feasibility of ancient voyages: American Dawn Polynesia: Out of Antarctica? Australia: Crossroads and Crossbreeds? South America: The Disappearing Past Other Voyages: Pre-Columbian Maps? Sinoan Antarctica: Chinese Whispers? Thor Heyerdahl Antarctican Antiquity? Part 3: The Archaeological record Archaeological theory and Antarctica Technology and skills of survival Maritime transport Shelter and clothing Hunting Fishing Ecological support and sustenance Lithics Cultural factors Anatomy of an Antarctican DNA, genetics and linguistics Physical attributes Where are the Antarcticans? Part 4: Technological Archaeology Geophysics Glaciology Provenancing and geofacts Oceanography Part 5: A Survey of Antarctic Regions Surveys Site types Investigation of Sub-Antarctic Islands Investigation of Antarctic Peninsula and Islands Protecting the environment Part 6: The Law and excavation in Antarctica The law and excavation in Antarctica The law and legal possession Past and future lessons Kennewick Man Otzi the Iceman Legal possession of Antarctic finds Repercussions of Antarctic finds Conclusion Reconciling present data Future Studies Bibliography Raymond Burke LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 . Contour map of Antarctica (source: Press and Siever 1986: 243) Figure 2 . Ice-free Antarctica (source: Crossley 2000: 9) Figure 3 . Present day location of ice-free areas (source: Campbell & Claridge 1987: 3) Figure 4. Snow accumulation and extents of sea ice (source: Rubin 2000: 21) Figure 5. Mean surface temperatures (January and July) (source: Crossley 2000: 18) Figure 6 . Major ocean currents, centered on Antarctica (source: Press & Siever 1986: 292) Figure 7 . Theorised routes to the Americas (source: Schobinger 1994: 17) Figure 8. Principal island groups of the Pacific Ocean. (source: Renfrew & Bahn 1996: 250) Figure 9. Last Glacial Maximum ice limits c.21,000-19,000 BP. (source: McCulloch et al ., 1997: 21) Figure 10 . Late glacial ice limit c.12,000-10,000 BP . (source: McCulloch et al ., 1997: 23) Figure 11. Principal vegetation zones. (source: McCulloch et al, 1997: 17) Figure 12. Indigenous regions at time of European contact. (source: Borrero 1997:61) Figure 13. Proposed routes and possible periods of travel to the Antarctic Region via the Americas and Australia based on author ’s data. (source: after Schobinger 1994: 17) Figure 14. Proposed route of Hong Admiral Boa to Antarctica (source Menzies 2002: 143) Figure 15. Proposed route of Admiral Hong Boa around the South Shetland Islands – darker shading from Piri Reis map (source Menzies 2002: 146) Figure 16. Yamana fisherman in canoe c.1907-8. (source: Borrero 1997: 62) Figure 17. Principal archaeological sites in Patagonia. (source: Borrero & McEwan 1997: 33) Figure 18. Bone and lithic maritime assemblage from the Beagle Channel c.6,000-4,000 BP . (source: Mena 1997: 52) Figure 19. Relative sizes and positions of sub-Antarctica Islands (source: Rubin 2000: 239) Figure 20. South Shetland Islands (source: Rubin 2000: 261) Figure 21.