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to indicate the breadth and interest from different fields of study and topics, including guidebooks, the internet, unpublished work and newspapers.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. King George Island (source: Rubin 2000: 263)

Figure 222222.... Deception Island (source: Rubin 2000: 267)

Figure 23. South Orkney Islands (source: Rubin 2000: 272)

Figure 24. South Georgia (source: Rubin 2000: 274)

Figure 25. South Sandwich Islands (source: Rubin 2000: 280)

Figure 26. Antarctic Peninsula Islands (source: Rubin 2000: 293)

Figure 27. The Weddell Sea area and Islands (source: Rubin 2000: 303)

Figure 28. Antarctic claims and territories (source: Crossley 2000: 87)

Raymond Burke 1

PART 1: NATURAL HISTORY AND ENVIRONMENT

Could there in Antarctica have been a foothold of man millennia before its discovery? Why Antarctica? Millennia ago, man wandered everywhere inhabiting the far north and the farthest reaches south. But then he supposedly stopped, the vast expanse of an unknown ocean ceasing their journeys. But did it? Why could prehistoric man not have journeyed even further than we today can imagine and that the evidence is still there, albeit hidden below the forbidding ice, awaiting discovery. When the first modern explorers came across the New World, they felt that the world was ‘off-balance' , that the majority of the landmasses fell to the north. Why, they wondered, was there nothing further south? Even after Australia was discovered, they still sought after the elusive southern continent that logically balanced the landmasses. Then in 1820 when Antarctica was finally found, this enigmatic continent became the object of intense scrutiny and myth. While continental Antarctica may have been too far and hostile a place to have been found by pre-European contact peoples, the sub-Antarctic or Antarctic Peninsula may have at least been reached. This study will examine the evidence for this discovery.

Geographic Regions Antarctica is the fifth largest continent, with an area of 14 million km ², compared with Europe’s 10 million km ² and the USA’s 9 million km ², though ice platforms and shifting sea ice and floes make it difficult to discern exact coastal outlines (Argod 2004: 139). Containing a tenth of the Earth's total landmass, it is twice as big as Australia, but if it were to loose its ice, East Antarctica would be Australia-sized, while West Antarctica, comprised of the Peninsula and Marie Byrd Land, would be a series of islands (see figures 1 & 2). Ninety-eight percent of Antarctica is covered with ice, the remaining ice-free two percent about the size of New Zealand (see fig. 3). Antarctica is surrounded by the fierce, wind-lashed, Southern Ocean, which extends from the 40th south parallel to the Antarctic Circle at 66 S. South America is the closest continent at 1000km away while Australia and South Africa are 2500km and 4000km away, respectively (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 1, 2; Crossley 2000: 6-9). Antarctica is one lonely place. This fact alone

gives scientists reason to dismiss early Antarctic discoveries. East Antarctica is old continental crust, heavily folded and metamorphised. It rises steeply from the coast to the central plateau at over 4000m, West Antarctica being a younger formation (Press and Siever 1998: 291). Geologically, the Peninsula, the South Shetlands and South Orkney Islands are mostly made from Mesozoic (235-65 million years ago) and Cainozoic (65 million years ago until the present) sedimentary, volcanic, granite and some metamorphic rock types (Crossley 2000: 11, 14). Marie Byrd Land averages 600-1000m, with mountains over 2000m (Press and Siever 1998: 291), while the Peninsula, at around 1500m, is part of an Antarctic-Andean structure that ends near the Ellsworth Mountains (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 1, 7, 19). The Ellsworth Mountains at the base of the Peninsula are part of a separate structure from the Trans-Antarctic Mountain system and has some limited bare ground as does the Peninsula and the almost ice-free Alexander island off its west coast, the bare ground existing due to the disappearing ice-cap (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 3, 308). But though the ground is bare now, glacial studies may indicate the past history of areas revealing when and where bare ground could have existed for settlements. The Peninsula's glacial history is not quite known even though extensive amounts of geologic and topographic work have been undertaken there. Marguerite Bay's glacial retreat, however, may have been recent and affected by external climatic influences due to its exposed location along the west of the Peninsula (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 307-8). The west ice dome probably stabilised by 8,000 to 7,000 years ago (Pyne 2003: 304). Since periods of glaciation and theirs retreat can be rapid, the Antarctic Peninsula and close offshore environs may have enjoyed agreeable climates for possible migrations. The (ice) mass budget compares snowfall gained to ice lost to the coast. A positive mass budget has more snow falling now than in the past, signifying a warmer climate, while a minus budget has less snow (Rubin 2000: 14). But the greatest ice thickness now does not match areas of greatest snow accumulation (Crossley 2000: 22), thus the ice mass budget must have been extremely positive over East Antarctica in the past for thousands of years, before a climate change reversed this trend. West Antarctica now has a positive budget (see fig. 4). The cause of this climate change and the possible habitation of Antarctica could thus be linked, with climate deterioration causing loss of resources and abandonment of settlements. After the last glacial maximum, 18,000 years ago, the ice sheet was higher and in modern times the ice sheet can reach out a further 1000km from the coast (Crossley 2000: 9, 13). I had wanted to see how far the continental shelf of Antarctica reached, but as quoted by Rand and Rose Flem-Ath from Whitaker's Almanack (1992) Antarctica's ‘continental shelf averages 20 miles

in width (half the global mean, and in places it is non-existent)' (Flem-Ath and Flem-Ath 1995: 100) and according to Environmental Historian Stephen J. Pyne, Antarctica’s shelves are the narrowest and deepest of all continent’s (Pyne 2003: 290). The surrounding pack-ice in winter can be 17 to 20 million km ² (more than Antarctica itself) (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 43), seemingly encompassing the South Shetland and South Orkney Islands. While not suggesting that while the ocean around South America's Tierra del Fuego was locked in ice, that there could have been a land-ice bridge to Antarctica caused by eustatic changes, it would have been an intriguing possibility. The prospects of walking to Antarctica, via a Beringia-like bridge, would not have been possible.

Climatic processes: Wind, ocean currents and temperatures Wind The winds circulate in a westerly direction, due to the southern latitude's low temperature and pressure compared to the equator's high temperature and pressure, which combined with the rotation of the Earth provides the wind system (Crossley 2000: 16). The temperatures of East Antarctica can reach -89C, the strong katabatic (downward flowing) winds affecting the Antarctic plateau. But the katabatic winds are lessened on the Peninsula when these winds interact with eastbound cyclonic winds bringing warm, moist air and precipitation from the sea. These cyclonic storms frequent the Peninsula, as they are further north and in the path of the circumpolar winds (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 47, 52). Also, the Peninsula receives more sunlight and daylight hours and sea temperatures are higher even in winter. But snowfall is higher, winds causing snowdrifts, sleet and even rain with temperatures sometimes rising above freezing in the summer (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 52). Figure 5 shows that on the Peninsula and adjacent islands in the winter, where it can snow up to 5cm annually, and temperatures range from -15C to +5C, while in the summer rise to 0C to 10C. The sub-Antarctic in summer and winter can be warmer by another 5C (Crossley 2000; 18, 22; Campbell and Claridge 1987: 45). This would seem comfortable to live in, if past conditions were the same or better over the last few millennia, and if colonisers were sheltered and fed adequately enough.

Ocean currents Ocean circulation close to the continent is from the east, but in the Furious Fifties and Roaring Forties they shift to come in from the west, creating the Antarctic Divergence, where the two currents sweep away from another (Crossley 2000: 54). Carrying 10 percent of the world's oceans,

connecting the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, the circumpolar current's rate is four times that of the Gulf Stream (Rubin 2000: 176). The storminess of the Southern Ocean is due to a bottleneck effect created by Tierra del Fuego and the Antarctic where the Atlantic, Pacific and Southern Oceans combine. Two thousand miles of ocean are suddenly compressed into a much shallower, 600-mile wide area, with winds forced southward via the Andes mountain range. The prevailing weather system then moves from west to east. In fact, Cape Horn earned the name wallapak wellek, meaning ‘evil point ’ from a Yamana Indian (McLeod 2002: 16). The Southern Ocean has a fearsome reputation, a dubious distinction that could obscure investigations into past voyages from surrounding lands. Yet ‘The Southern Ocean is more accessible than the permanently frozen Artic Ocean; the ice-free areas feature climates no worse than the inhabited regions of the north polar region ’ (Pyne 2003:359), but the Inuit and their ancestor were able to survive the rigours of the area. Accessible, yet forbidding; it is this dichotomy which must have tempted ancient man ’s nature to explore and tell the tale. When the Polynesians, who probably originated from South East Asia sailed the Pacific, they followed the currents, both the late explorer-scientist Thor Heyerdahl and writer-historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto citing the ‘figure of eight' like wind and sea patterns of the Pacific (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 333, 558; Heyerdahl 2000: 281). The Pacific Ocean currents are essentially cyclical. North of the equator, from America to Asia, the current runs clockwise, including the Japanese and Philippine currents, and up to the north edge of the Pacific current by the Bering Strait. The southern current runs anti-clockwise almost meeting the northern current near the equator (Heyerdahl 2000: 281). Figure 6 reveals that these ‘patterns of large closed [ocean] loops' , or gyres , are connected to counter currents, equatorial currents and sub polar currents all combining to form a world ocean driven by the prevailing winds (Press and Siever 1998: 291). The Humboldt (or Peru) current and wind from the Pacific connects the Chatham Islands and New Zealand to South America. Sea routes and winds made travel to Hawaii and Easter Island difficult, but they too were still found (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 333-5). These currents extend into the Southern Ocean, where eight main island groups lie within the southerly, west-drifting winds. The islands are cold, wet and windy and are 1000km away from the other continents (Crossley 2000: 60). The sub-Antarctic islands may have been visited by early migrants for purposes of hunting, fishing and exploring for resources much as the Europeans did in the early 19th century. The biggest islands groups shall be examined in this work offering more advantages for survival, and include the South Georgia, South Shetlands, South Sandwich and South Orkney Islands.

Sea and wind patterns for routes are precarious, able to be followed one way but having to wait for a favourable return route. Did ancient man find this out? Are there yet-to-be-found remains and wrecks of Pre-Columbian peoples and vessels around the sub-Antarctic areas? Juan Schobinger, an Argentine Professor of archaeology in his book The First Americans (1984) shows a map, (Fig. 7) indicating possible population movements to the Americas. An intriguing arrow traces a travel route from Australia skirting along the Antarctic Peninsula and up into Tierra del Fuego, with other routes from Polynesia contacting the Peruvian-Chilean coast and then moving downward towards Tierra del Fuego (Schobinger 1994: 17). Could this be a possibility? Was Antarctica on an early migration route? This map only indicates migration routes due to ocean currents. But was the Peninsula a place for settlement? Schobinger, however, rules out navigation in the Pacific until 3000BC (Schobinger 1994: 17), but evidence introduced later could contradict this.

Climatic regions (Temperatures) As established by Antarctic climatologists, Weyant and Holdgate, they described four general climatic regions including the interior Antarctic plateau, the Antarctic slope, the Antarctic Coast and Holdgate's Maritime Antarctic (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 49). We are interested in the Maritime Antarctic, which includes the west Antarctic Peninsula from 70S to 55S, its islands, and the South Sandwich and South Shetland Islands. The Southern and Eastern parts of the Peninsula are ‘completely ice bound' being 4-6C colder and having stronger winds similar to the East Antarctic coast. Meanwhile, temperatures in the Maritime region have a mean temperature of - 10C to 0C. There are some signs of glaciation and some bare ground, though sheltered areas may have moist soil with growing plants (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 63-4, 71). Because the Peninsula is mountainous, it disrupts warm, moist air from the northwest garnering the Peninsula the highest precipitation rate for all of Antarctica with more than 1000mm per annum on the Peninsula west coast. It is more cloudy during the summer when there are light winds, but cloudless during the windiest months of September to October. All this combines to give Maritime Antarctic a ‘greater availability of liquid water' (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 63-4). In turn this could augur favourably in terms of possible past habitation of the Peninsula, depending on the climatic conditions. Terminology wise, I will use the term Peninsula to refer to the west Peninsula proper; Maritime Antarctic will mean the Peninsula islands while sub-Antarctic will refer to the South Shetland, South Orkney, South Sandwich and South Georgia Island groups. And the Antarctic Region will encompass all

these environs.

Zoological and Botanical Zoologically, vertical ocean circulation, up-welling and sinking, help to cool the air and also produce nutrients for surface dwelling organisms (Press and Siever 1998: 292-3). This is important in Antarctica for the food chain in the Southern Ocean is rich, algae blooming after the winter, bringing in phytoplankton and zooplankton which nourishes krill, fish, seal and whales. Penguins, birds and small insects make for some of the land animals (Crossley, 2000: 50-1). Invertebrates include collembola, mites, rotifers, protozoa, nematodes and others in Antarctica, with 25 mites species and 7 collembola species in Maritime Antarctica, the largest of which is only 5mm (Argod 2004: 142; Campbell and Claridge 1987: 74, 87). Antarctica has the ‘coldest and driest climate in the world' due to locked-up water, resulting in very low humidity and precipitation, causing the soil-forming process (weathering, etc) to be reduced (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 43). Therefore, botanically, there is not much, with 350-400 species of lichens, 360 species of algae, 9 Genera of liverworts, 75 species of fungi and mosses. But there are only two flowering plants on the Peninsula (Antarctic hair grass and Antarctic Pearlwort or alternatively family Graminaeae (Deschampsia Antarctica ) and carnation ( Colobanthus crassifollus )) compared to the 50 species of vascular plants on South Georgia Island (Argod 2004: 141; Crossley 2000: 52; Campbell and Claridge 1987: 74; Rubin 2000: 56), [still paltry when compared to the 80,000 vascular plant species in the Amazon - Dillehay 2000: 55]. Of course the higher north one goes, the diversity of faunal and floral species increases, as does the productivity of the soil. So at 65S, where temperatures range from 0C midsummer to around -15C in the winter there can be a carpeting effect of lichens and mosses in more sheltered areas (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 86-7) Part 3 will examine the role fauna and flora could have played in the settlement of the Antarctic environs.

Soils Maritime Antarctic and the Peninsula soils are akin to north polar regions. They undergo more cryoturbic processes, are of a younger age, and are less weathered. But studies on clay properties have yet to be compiled completely (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 137). These soils include the soils of the Antarctic Peninsula region, Signy Island, the South Shetland Islands and Elephant Island which typify the uniqueness of the region, affected by strong frost action and are wetter with distinctive leaching. They support plants, organic matter and peat, but there are no soils of great age, though there is not much datable material to work from nor an accurate glacial history to work

from (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 152). Some moss banks that decay less as they lay on the permafrost have been dated back to 7000 years. Some sub-Antarctic islands are warmer, like temperate mountain areas (Rubin 2000: 187). This could have consequences for cultivation developments. Soil formations would be important factors in settlement if some form of cultivation were established. But as stated while there seems to be enough nutrients for plant growth:

‘The major limitation for plant growth appears to be instability of the soil surface, caused largely by cryoturbic processes that prevent plant establishment. Where surfaces are stable, plants that are well adapted to the prevailing climatic regime can survive, and with them, their characteristic microfauna and microflora’ (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 92-3).

But also, soil formation and its stability is dependant on the underlying rock type and its weathering. But in Antarctica, physical weathering of rock is less intensive due to low temperature and aridity (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 23, 97), so that:

‘On the present land surface, no areas of soils that on weathering grounds could be considered to have formed in a previous or radically different weathering cycle have been reported’ (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 179).

This point is important, for if some form of cultivation was not practiced then evidence for this absence and for other subsistence practices must be shown in order to support settlement theories. There is also a time limit, for as McCraw observes, soil colours indicate the age of soils and most of the Antarctic Peninsula soils are young (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 195) and confined on the glaciated Peninsula slopes too steep for snow to gather on. ‘There are no extensive areas of more-or-less level, bare ground' (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 308), which while hindering cultivation prospects, does not make it impossible, as seen in Part 3.

Island densities of the Pacific and Southern Oceans What is the relationship and distances between the Southern continents? Australia is about 2,000 kilometres from New Zealand, yet New Zealand was discovered by the Polynesians seemingly unaware of Australia, while New Zealand also shows no early Aborigine inhabitants from Australia. Sea and wind currents, discussed above, must have an important role to play in these voyages. The Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, is only 1000 kilometres away from Tierra del Fuego and was apparently not discovered. Parts 2 and 3 will examine

further the data in relation to navigation and possible discoveries. What would be the chances of finding some of the Pacific islands? Was this due to favourable winds and ocean currents, excellent navigational skills or other factors? Would these factors also apply to the possible early discovery of the sub-Antarctic? The sub-Antarctic has larger islands in groups, lying within a 1000 kilometres of South America and Antarctica. The Pacific is 20,000 kilometres wide (Gamble 1993: 227) with over 10,000 islands (Lomborg 2001: 29). Figure 8 shows the Pacific islands have small islands and groups strung across or peppered around the Pacific and are usually more than 500 kilometres away from other island groups and continents. The Polynesian ‘triangle' shares this oceanic expanse with Melanesia and Micronesia, its points terminating at Hawaii, Easter Island and New Zealand. Hawaii, to the north is 3,862 kilometres from the Marquesas and 4,410 kilometres away from Tahiti and the Society Island at the triangle's centre. Easter Island is at the eastern point, 3,703 kilometres away from South America and 1,819 kilometres away from Pitcairn, the nearest island neighbour. New Zealand occupies the southern point (Gamble 1993: 228). If we see the Pacific as some kind of maritime highway, then over time the chances of finding islands in the Pacific would increase and be greater than finding islands in the rarely visited Southern Ocean. But it would not be impossible and island hopping in the Southern Ocean may have been productive. But how, who and when this was done remains unanswered.

Summary Antarctica may seem a lone, frigid and uninhabitable place, but once its remoteness is broached, via connecting ocean currents, it becomes evident that some areas could have been habitable in the past even if conditions were as today or better, as is suggested in further discussions, and if ecological support (e.g. soils, sustenance and climate) were more forthcoming or adaptable to. Parts 2 and 3 will discuss past possible voyages and how the Antarctic Region could be survivable.

Raymond Burke

PART 2: VOYAGES OF DISCOVERY

Who would travel to Antarctica? And why? Was Antarctica settled in the remote past when it was more viable for occupation and then abandoned when that changed? What types of sea craft were used? Were they reed boats, wooden constructs, or animal-skinned with wooden framework? Were sails in use so early in time? Until the ships of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it was presumed that no others had ventured so far south. But as discussed below, the Southern Ocean may have been travelled, maybe as far as the Peninsula. Studies of possible Antarctican antiquity may seem fanciful, but may also offer insights into possible colonisations, as we also explore the probable identities of those cultures that may have been the Antarcticans. This section involves retracing and backtracking over past colonisations of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific.

Reasons for migration Why migrate in the first place? Was it due to environmental or cultural factors or both? Was it a quest for exploration and glory? The motivation to colonise another region, especially the Antarctic, must be weighed against the factor of survival. Survival depends on knowledge of the land you colonise. The fact that no colonies survive today suggests that either no one colonised Antarctica, or that they did, but did not survive. If they did arrive on Antarctic shores, then how did they get there and where did they come from? One reason is offered by Charles Pasternak:

We search for new horizons, we seek explanations for the phenomena around us, but we also strive to dominate our fellow creatures. (Pasternak 2003:1)

Even in the simplest sense, to dominate our fellow creatures, means dominating the environment physically, mentally and spiritually. The Antarctic Region may have offered new horizons, a new spiritual vista and freedom for a leader to exercise power, or a people to experience a new life. But the many reasons are varied as discussed below. Quest – the essence of humanity, as Pasternak describes it, can be quite powerful, but reality always proffers more questions than answers.

Purpose versus Chance The following examples are used for the Pacific, but I believe that they can be adapted to the Southern Ocean, other oceans, and other exploration models. Archaeologist Professor Clive Gamble does not believe, at least in the Pacific, that an aimless approach to seafaring was taken. Levison, Ward and Webb ’s computer simulation model of founding populations in the Pacific concluded that Hawaii, New Zealand and Easter Island could not have been found by ‘chance and drift ’ techniques. They also ran models for an eastern voyage from the Galapagos Islands to Polynesia with only one out of the 732 ‘drift ’ voyages succeeding. Findings from Irwin, Bickler and Quirk e’s computer simulations also concluded that ‘purposive exploration rather that human drift ’ was responsible for Pacific colonisation (Gamble 1993: 231). Have such models been conducted in the Southern Ocean? Surely even the earliest of the accomplished seafarers would have planned a voyage rather than drift aimlessly. As discussed in Part 1, the islands of the Southern Ocean may have been easier to find, being bigger in size, in bigger groups and relatively close to both South America and Antarctica. Prospective colonisers may have found them via inadvertent drift during a typical Southern oceanic storm. But purposive explorers may have ‘read ’ natural travel signs, as detailed below. Exploration with purpose would have been more fruitful. Purposive exploration uses the fact that women, plants and animals were taken on these voyages to help found colonies. But what was the cause of migration; population demands or a heroic tradition based on self-interests and rewards? Gamble dismisses the former reason as an out-dated and over-used mechanism for change. Over-crowding, he asserts, would have happened a lot earlier, but that the migrations were a later development (Gamble 1993: 232). After the discovery of Easter Island, New Zealand and Hawaii, exploration seems to have stopped. Gamble argues that as more islands were colonised and the more people were encountered on these islands, that there was a belief that there was nothing left to be discovered [though as explained below, there may be other reasons for that]. As a further comment, Keegan and Diamond see island colonisation as ‘a combination of trade, searching for prized resources or unoccupied lands to relieve overpopulation, and just plain curiosity ’ (Gamble 1993: 233-4). But contrary to Gamble, Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London sees migration arising from population pressures and not the heroic tradition, both in the Americas and Australia (Stringer and McKie 1997: 168). There may have been ideological reasons to move, for separation and identification issues, for inspiration, a mythological reason or other cultural factors (Mithen 2003: 205). I think that it would have to be a combination of these reasons. Having the will to survive necessarily means being heroic enough to know when to migrate or face dying.

So, even as the Pacific and the Americas were populated, a purposive force must have been a factor. And as Tierra del Fuego was reached and mitigating factors compelled a change in lifestyle, did the Fuegians mount a purposeful colonisation to the Antarctic Region? Another answer could be the fact that early American migrants were ‘transient explorers ’, opportunistic peoples in small groups looking for new lands, when their own territory was changing in respect to environmental, resource and cultural changes. Transient explorers searched ‘one familiar habitat after another in search of similar resources, moving long distances and producing ephemeral archaeological sites ’ (Dillehay 2000: 251). While not as deliberate as purposive exploration, a transient approach nevertheless shows a rationalised method of exploration. Being an Antarctican may have necessitated being transient, which is not good for archaeologists who can find no trace of their existence.

Reading the signs So once it had been established whether voyages were by chance or on purpose, how would the ancient sailor have known where to go? Experienced seafarers may have ‘read ’ the winds, currents and other climatic conditions in order to travel. Easter Island is a nine mile wide isolated triangular dot in the vast pacific. But the Polynesians found it, anticipating landfall from nesting birds, which circulated hundreds of miles in radius from the island looking for food, making the ‘effective diameter ’ of Easter Island up to two hundred miles (Diamond 2005: 88). The same could be true for Southern Ocean islands, which are bigger than Easter Island. Other isolated Pacific islands inhabited by Polynesian colonisers were Mangareva, 1000 miles south east and south of the Society Islands and the Marquesas, respectively; Pitcairn (2.5 square miles), 300 hundred miles south east of Mangareva and lastly, Henderson Island (14 square miles) 400 hundred miles from Mangareva and 100 miles from Pitcairn (Diamond 2005: 121-124). Finding these three islands was incredible enough, but they were n’t found through hit and miss, but by skillful seamanship. Archaeological studies show that the three island groups traded amongst each other from AD1000 to 1450 for resources such as wood, volcanic glass and basalt, food and shell, until environmental degradation and over-population caused a break down in their societies (Diamond 2005: 131-133). The Southern Ocean islands around Antarctica, as seen in Part 5, are much bigger than the Pacific Ocean examples. They are closer to both Tierra del Fuego and to the Antarctic Peninsular than the Pacific islands are to other groups. Islands such as the South Shetlands and South Sandwich Islands, etc would have offered greater effective radii to prospective colonizers. But were

they found? Other signs in detecting remote islands were also available. Distant volcano eruptions from oceanic islands could provide signs of distant lands. As recently as 1969, Deception Island erupted destroying several stations and producing a new cone. Also on the South Shetland Islands, tectonic activity is still known to be active in the area, as is Mt. Erebus on Ross Island (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 22, 26). The Volcanoes of Marie Byrd Land may not still be active, but have been in the very recent past, its residue of mixed-layered clays as evidence (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 137). The South Sandwich Islands are also volcanically active (Rubin 2000: 280). While many of the islands around sub-Antarctica and the Peninsula are remnants of dormant volcanoes, some, like the South Sandwich Islands, may have been active during the settling of southern South America, explosive eruptions of steam, ash and smoke attracting the attention from miles away. Though fearful of such events, people may have investigated out of curiosity or ritual, thus discovering further islands or the Peninsula itself. Investigations into recent volcanic activity in these latitudes may bear out evidence that they could have been used as beacons and evidence of further land south. Icebergs still today calve off the Antarctic continent and drift north to melt. But the attraction of icebergs, especially large tabular bergs which can be several square kilometers and can even today reach as high as 26 south (Crossley 2000: 26), could have piqued interest as to their origins. Icebergs could have trailed back to Antarctica, like enticing icy, bread-crumbs, followed by adventurous folk, who may have even had fresh water provided for them by scraping off iceberg pieces. Auroras, created by Earth's magnetic field interacting with the solar wind during dark winter nights could have encouraged exploration for their origins. From how far could they be seen? Are there any depictions of auroras in South American myth or art? This may have earned the Antarctic environs a mythical status, one of a land of light and a place to visit. Reality, much like the Viking's Vinland, may have deterred prolonged settlement, but the possibility of discovery cannot be discounted. Little explored is Antarctica in relation to stars and constellations as navigational aids, though Chinese ships may have used this technique, as discussed later. Sub-Antarctic islands may have been linked to such ‘stellar routes' with connecting highways between the islands. These routes may have been part of an oral tradition or a myth. Are there South American or Australian myths, rock art, or other evidence that Antarctic areas could be found by using astronomical data? Even the sun, moon and auroral effects could have been used as navigational markers. Dillehay discusses the salient point of ‘cognitive maps ’ that some

archaeologists fail to acknowledge. Without the mental perceptions and abilities, early mariners may not have been able to travel. But it is this use of natural instruments (like human observation and intuition) and perception of tides, current, winds, cloud formations, bird migrations and celestial patterns that provided a cognitive network that could escape archaeological detection (Dillehay 2000: 263). The gap between ma n’s cognitive beliefs and his physical ability may have been close enough for him to have actually reached the Antarctic Region. Volcanic smoke or fire, icebergs, auroras and stellar phenomenon may have seemed to people who saw them as being signs from gods. But did they act upon their instincts and try to follow these signs toward their origins? More likely, it was the sea and wind currents that had the greatest affects on voyages with the above factors playing minor roles. But who could have made the voyages?

Resources and the environment Did ancient cultural groups migrate because of a shortage of resources and environmental changes? The main cause of this could have been the so-called megafaunal overkill theory. This was first proposed in anthropologist Paul Martin ’s 1967 work Pleistocene Overkill Theory . Megafauna represent adult mammals over 45 kilograms (Martin 1996: 432). Martin believes that: a) Paleoindians, with few carnivore predators to compete with, went on a systematic hunting spree of megafauna to sustain the massive increase in the colonising human population (around an annual rate of 2-4percent) (Martin 1996: 433). b) That this rapid colonisation depended on a 160 kilometre deep front with population densities decreasing further behind this from as they settled. c) Assumes a constant rate of advance, 16 kilometres per year in order to reach Tierra del Fuego in 1000 years, as evidenced by Fells cave, Patagonia dated to 10,700 BP. d) That the low visibility of these groups is based on high mobility, with few and small settlements; no need for traps; no paintings, carvings or engraving of the animals because they were killed before they could be recorded (Gamble 1993: 209).

Backing up his theory, Martin cites late Quaternary extinctions were not worldwide and synchronous, but were linked with human migration whether in Eurasia, Australia and the Pacific Islands. This megafaunal extinction around 11,000 BP in the Americas was far more rapid than in Eurasia during the same time. Martin also discounts declines in the environment and macrofaunal and

plant resources as a major element in the extinction since there was no ‘unique climatic pulse ’ seen in the records of oxygen isotopes, ice cores or pollen to indicate such a drastic change. He insists that Paleo-Indians were the main cause of the extinctions (Martin 1996: 432-4). Further, the scarcity of kill sites and processing sites indicates the high mobility and low visibility of these groups (Martin 1996: 433). It is this ‘incessant movement ’ that lies at the heart of the theory (Stringer and McKie 1997: 156). How did the Paleo-Indians spread so fast and far across the Americas? Though this is more related to North American archaeology, there is no doubt that big-game hunting of megafauna took place in South America. But opponents of this theory claim that it did not result in the astonishingly rapid extinction of megafauna through human colonisation of the Americas. So what did happen? Archaeologists, like John Gowlett, believe that colonisation took place in the Americas between 30,000 to 15,000 years ago. This move was sporadic and unsystematic, while other optimal times for Paleo-Indians to have crossed over a Beringia-type land bridge to encounter ice-free corridors through Alaska and Canada are between 50,000 to 40,000 years ago, 28,000 to 25,000 years ago and the favoured 13,000 to 10,000 years ago (Gowlett 1993: 140; Schobinger 1994: 12). But many of the early sites that archaeologists are investing are few and far between, some of them with disputed and unconvincing evidence for early dates. The dating and taphonomy of sites in relation to megafaunal extinction is crucial in the understanding of Martin ’s theory. Megafauna and predators included mammoths, mastodons, lions, sabre-tooth cats, dire wolves, deer, horses, giant sloths, camelids and others. Can we determine their deaths and the contexts of their location, whether in a predator trap, man-made kill ground or animal graveyard? Don Grayson of Washington University argues that the absence of some megafauna bones post- dating the Clovis does not mitigate against their continued survival and that the killer of one species may not have been the killer of them all (Stringer and McKie 1997: 159), while Gary Haynes believes that most of the animals, especially mammoths were scavenged from the sick, old or very young (Meltzer 1996: 25). Martin ’s c alculations see seventy five percent of megafauna killed within around 300 years coinciding with the Clovis Culture period (c.11,500 BP), similar in South America. Compared with the Old world, these make for grim figures when it is seen that in the past 100,000 years no such extinctions had occurred in the Old World where some of the megafauna were either already extinct prior to Homo Sapiens arrival or that they avoided man. In South America since that time seventy nine percent of the megafauna became extinct, while in Australia the number was eighty six percent and in Africa only

fourteen percent (Stringer and McKie 1997: 158). But the extinction of the mammoth in Western Asia was already underway between 14,000 and 12,000 BP (Gamble 1993: 207) and in the early South American Holocene there were many animal extinctions, reasons unknown (Schobinger 1994: 13). Thirty-five Genera of megafauna became extinct during the time of the Pale-Indians drive south, even though there are fewer than twenty sites that have artefacts related to megafauna remains. Anthropologist David Meltzer from Southern Methodist University, Texas sees a bias in the collection of data in that megafauna remains invariably survive and preserve better. Evidence from flotation reveals that seeds, lakeside and marsh plants and animals, including turtles were also part of the Pale-Indian diet all over the Americas (Meltzer 1996: 25). Martin ’s idea of a high population having a high mobility and low visibility is argued against by Gamble who states that ‘low visibility, championed by Martin for the Paleoindians, works just as well as an explanation for much earlier occupations ’ (Gamble 1993: 210). Meltzer also argues that the rapidity of colonisation in the Americas is contrary to previous humans occupation rates. Migrants would have to get to know the local edible plants and also animal habits, which given the wide distribution of the Paleo-Indians within a limited timescale of 300 years or so is too fast. The Clovis culture may not have been a population movement, but a new technology that spread during that time period (Meltzer 1996: 25). Additionally Schobinger believes that there were many independent groups around 11,000 years ago in South America (Schobinger 1994: 28). Tellingly, Clovis-style projectile points are not found in South America, unless they ‘evolved ’ into South American Fells-type projectile points, which most archaeologists think did not happen. The Fell-type points were probably independent inventions. Other pre-dating, non-Clovis points exist in North America at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, near Pittsburgh (21,000 to 15,950 BP) with its distinctive ‘miller points ’ dated to 12,000 to 11,000 BP (Gamble 1993: 210; Gowlett 1993: 141). This points to various cultures with their own inventions and traditions. The absence of megafauna artwork is also cited by Martin in his case for megafaunal extinction. This seems to have started late in the Americas, examples from Patagonia and Brazil dating to 9000 to 6000 BP and 10,000 to 5000 BP, respectively (Schobinger 1994: 32). Martin states that the animals were not painted or represented in any art-form because they were being killed off too fast (Gamble 1993: 210) But what if most of the megafauna were already absent? And why should American art traditions be the same as Eurasian art traditions from which Martin drew his comparisons? More than forty animal species swept into the Americas, fewer that ten

migrated from the Americas to Asia, including camelids, wolves, horses and foxes (Schobinger 1994: 12). Why did they migrate either way? Was the climate changing in such a way that if they had not migrated, they would be extinct now? Palaeontologist Bjorn Kurten agrees with Martin ’s theory, but also states that those animals that survived, migrated to the Americas at a late time and that the moose, caribou, grizzly bear and musk ox were conditioned to man and his weapons, thus avoiding him (Stringer and McKie 1997: 155-9). Lastly, had environmental changes in the Americas already started to affect megafauna before the migrants had arrived? Peter Ward from Washington University argues that climate alone could not have killed off the megafauna by changes in temperature, food and plant resources. He states that they would have moved to other areas in times of seasonal scarcity citing the African megafauna of today that migrate in times of seasonal difficulty (Stringer and McKie 1997: 159-60). However, rebuttals come in the form of Vance Haynes who says that the dry interval of 11,000 to 10,000 BP hastened the megafauna extinction, especially in the Clovis heartland of the southwest. Likewise, Robert Kelly and Lawrence Todd ’s research shows a ‘declining environment ’ leading to the Paleo-Indians having to search for dwindling resources rather than an overabundant hunting spree (Gamble 1993: 210). Also Martin ’s steadily advancing migrants does not seem to take into account seasonal and climatic concerns and physical barriers like mountains, rivers, canyons, rainforests, glaciers or indeed other people. The environment ’s impact on megafauna extinction may have been more gradual and subtle than an extreme event, but the Paleoindian s’ arrival may have created conditions that artificially hastened the end of the megafauna. Martin has laid the blame for megafauna extinction on the migrating Americans, seemingly neglecting mounting evidence for earlier cultures (not only in South America, but also in North America) and their possible effects on extinctions, not to mention environmental effects whose character cannot be assessed through one type of data. While Martin makes a good case for human overkill, more data on pre-Clovis megafauna populations, biases in preservation, data collecting and unexplained megafauna extinctions and non- Clovis related megafauna deaths will have to be collected. Mithen, for example, has calculated in a computer model that no blitzkrieg would have been needed if humans only killed a few animals per year, as slow reproduction rates of animals would have lead to a decline in Megafauna (Mithen 2003: 255). I believe that the already slow, natural decline of the North and South American megafauna due to environmental changes was exacerbated by the arrival and hunting of the Paleo-Indians. These environmental changes heralded man ’s entry into the Americas, but also had a cascade effect on animals and their habitat resources, which man exploited at the expense of the megafauna.

Combinations of overkill, disease, or climate would have affected feedback on each factor and megafauna die-off would have been inevitable. While aspects of Martin ’s theory can be refuted, it should be reassessed and modified to account for new data. The lack of megafauna, whether caused by man or not, may not in itself have caused a migration. With climatic changes, new environmental niches would have been created and discovered and the first migrants would have carried on as if there had been no megafauna. The megafaunal overkill theory in relation to human migration is still a controversial issue, but could still hold important ramifications to encourage migration to the Antarctic Region.

Conflict and Circumscription As noted, Stringer sees migration arising from population pressures. Such pressures could bring conflict as resources became depleted. Conflict could address shortcomings in resources due to population stress and also with delimited areas by forcing societies to seek new lands for their population. Anthropologist Robert Carneiro, in his seminal 1970s work on social and environmental circumscription, theorised that the territory available to a population could become circumscribed. He was commenting on the north coastal Peruvians, which could be applied to the Andean cultures of the Moche and the Inca whose limited valley space or verticality lent itself to creating pressures on society. Carneiro sees that a group within its regionally restricted area will eventually require more land and resources for its growing population, while another group in their own circumscribed area will resist any encroachment upon their own resources (Carneiro 1970: 736-7). David Webster from Penn State University, in his reconsideration of Carneiro ’s work, states that ‘Warfare is seen as an adaptive ecological choice under conditions of population growth and resource limitation ’ (Webster 1975: 464). The dispersal of the migrants could reflect an anti-conflict strategy aimed to optimise their own resources, which led to differing technologies and traditions. But could this be applied to migrating Antarcticans? As discussed later, the population of South America around 12,500-10,000 BP was only around a few thousand (Dillehay 2000: 32) and maybe Australi a’s was not much more. Certainly the migrants would not have been concentrated so highly in one area (or there would be greater archaeological evidence for this), but transient explorers may have encountered other more settled groups, ran out of salient resources or come across particularly non-resourceful land. Webster theorises that conflict could maybe organise society, promoting internal stability and leading to future states with greater social hierarchy, a military and administrative systems under centralised control. While

conflict did not cause the rise of early states, it may have become a factor in decreasing internal stresses ensuring survival against external stresses (Webster 1975: 469). But this social and environmental circumscription model could be hard to prove in remote Australia or South America. The lack of weapons for warfare (maybe mistaken for hunting tools) could indicate that conflict was not a crucial factor in migration and that having a non-circumscribed, viable environment was.

Modern explorers efforts to find Antarctica Terra Australis Incognita was imagined by the Greeks as early as 530 BC (Rubin 2000: 13) to balance off their north-heavy world. Though competitive explorations were launched by the great sea-faring nations of Colonial Europe nothing could be found of the elusive southern continent. Sir Francis Drake discovered the passage named after him [between Tierra del Fuego and Antarctica] during his 1577-80 voyages (Rubin 2000: 15-6). Centuries later, Captain James Cook who had ‘circumnavigated the globe three times and discovered more territory than anyone else in history' hunted for Antarctica in vain during 1772-5, reaching 71 10' south and discovering the South Sandwich Islands. Of the conditions in the Southern Ocean he said:

‘Thick fogs, Snow storms, Intense Cold and every other thing that can render Navigation dangerous, one has to encounter and these difficulties are greatly heightened by the enexpressable [sic] horrid aspect of the Country, a Country doomed by Nature never once to feel the warmth of the suns rays, but to Lie for ever buried under everlasting snow and ice' (Rubin 2000: 16).

In 1819, William Smith was blown off course in the Drake Passage accidentally discovering the South Shetlands and American Nathaniel Palmer discovered the South Orkney Islands and laid claim to sighting the Peninsula (the part now named Palmer Land) (Crossley 2000: 29). But it was Estonian Admiral, Thaddeus Von Bellingshausen commanding a Russian voyage that made the first sighting January 27, 1820 (Rubin 2000: 18-9, 23). American John Davis, a sealing master made the first documented landing on the Peninsula, February 7, 1821 (Rubin 2000: 18). And James Weddell (1823) reached 74 15' south, a record at the time (Crossley 2000: 28-9). Following in their wakes was the start of the sealing and whaling industries. But could other earlier peoples, like Smith, have been blown off course rounding Cape Horn to discover lands further south of their own? Also of importance, as discussed later, was the explorations of Norwegian

Carl Larsen, who in 1893, explored the northern coasts of the Peninsula, finding some petrified wood on Seymour Island (Rubin 2000: 28). This and his other finds have prompted writers to suggest Antarctic settlements. These first momentous voyages by Europeans opened the door onto the cold wastelands, whose mists may yet hold older secrets.

Feasibility of Ancient Voyages: How would we know that man had traveled to sub-Antarctica or beyond? Did ancient man record such journeys? Verbal records and myths may have been forgotten or disappeared due to language extinction, assimilation, accident or other means, while writing may not have been used, known, or recognisable to archaeologists. Migrations to Antarctica, of course, presupposes the superiority of the ‘Out of Africa' theory over the ‘Multi-regional Hypothesis', which holds that man, Homo erectus , left Africa about 1 million years ago and evolved everywhere into modern humans, counter to the Out of Africa's later two-phased 100,000 years initial migration and the later exodus of 50,000 years ago. The evidence is heavily in favour of the Out of Africa theory, validated by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and linguistics data. If this is the case, then early humans from the first migration could have spanned the globe from Africa, across Asia and Australia to Antarctica by 60,000 years ago.

American Dawn The oldest sites in America have been lost in time to the environment, but archaeologists are finding early sites, though they still attract controversy. Thomas Dillehay, anthropologist and discoverer of Monte Verde, Chile, the oldest confirmed site in the Americas (12,5000 BC and possibly 31,000 BC), acknowledges that ‘…the first immigrants probably came from several different places in the Old World and that their genetic heritage and physical appearance were much more diverse than we thought. ’ (Mithen 2003: 234; Dillehay 2000: preface xiv). An influx of various peoples into the Americas at differing times could serve to hide clues and bias data about more ‘exotic ’ journeys. Archaeologists are still now divided over the timing and entry point into the Americas and in the glare of academic battle, Antarctic evidence could be dismissed, over-looked or destroyed. A human presence has been tentatively identified at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania. Discovered in 1973 by James Adovasio and later studied by University of Alberta archaeologists Ruth Gruhn and Alan Bryan, the site has been dated to 16,000 years ago and possibly 21,000 years ago, though contamination issues from coal deposits and dust still remain. Because the site is so far inland and blocked by the ice-sheets which covered the north

from around 30,000 to 16,000 years ago, Gruhn and Bryan theorised that these Meadowcroft people had sailed down the west coast of America around 50,000 years ago, traveled inland in small, mobile groups which left no trace for the archaeological record and set up in a sheltered woodland area, where the population grew sufficiently to leave traces in the form of tools and animal bones (Mithen 2003: 216-7). There has also been a new development in the possible tracing of human inhabitation of the Americas possibly up to 40,000 years ago. Evidence of human footprints has been found in central Mexico, by the shore of a volcanic lake in Valsequillo Basin, ‘a rich source of archaeological finds ’ (Adler 2006: 42). The find so far, led in 2003, by geoarchaeologist Silvia Gonzalez from Liverpool John Moores University, included hundreds of human (164 so far) and animal (105 so far) trace fossils preserved in volcanic ash. The prints were dated to around 40,000 years old, using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) on the sediments and mollusc shells found in the ash – which is known to be 22,000 years old from the volcano Cerro Toluquilla (Adler 2006: 42-44). Combined with the Leakey test, which sets the criteria for determining fossilised footprints, Gonzalez refutes her critics who have argon-argon dated, magnetically assessed, and deemed the sediments to at least a million years old and thus far too old for man to be in the Americas (Adler 2006: 44-45). Undaunted, Gonzalez is also studying the oldest skull from the Americas; Penon woman, which possesses a non-Native American long and narrow skull, dated to 13,000 years old. Gonzalez is also performing craniometric and genetic studies on twenty seven of the oldest of 10,000 bodies found in Mexico, ranging from the Pleistocene to the 18 th century. Gonzalez could be on to something, since of the thirty-seven pre- 9000BC skeletal remains of Paleo-indians (as of 2000AD) all resemble early Australians from 60,000 years ago or modern Africans (Adler 2006: 44; Mithen 2003: 227). As with Gruhn and Bryan, the conclusion is that these peoples had possibly migrated from Asia by sea via the northern Pacific, where Japan was still attached to the mainland at 11000BP, and down along the western American coastline to Mexico. (Highfield 2005; Webster 2005: 3; Adler 2006: 44). These data point to ancient and intermittent colonization of the Americas, with disparate populations moving, settling and possibly intermingling upon contact. With uncharacteristic non-Native American skulls, (e.g. Penon Woman, Luzia in Brazil -discussed below and Kennewick Man -discussed in Part 6), and with sites dated beyond conventional theories (e.g. Monte Verde, Chile 14,500BP and Quebrada Jaguay, Peru 13,00BP) conflicting data could be indications of a longer inhabitation of the Americas. Following on from the above conclusions, colonisation routes and the length of time available to migrate could have led to explorations further south.

The following examples below trace the history of exploration (pertinent to this work) to assess the origins of possible Antarcticans, whether from across the Pacific Ocean or Beringia. This background covers a wide scope of material from American, Pacific and Australian archaeological data to reveal the originality of ancient explorers, their courage and adaptability. Because I believe that Antarcticans would have originated from these continents, it is necessary to assess the technology, culture and environment of these places in order to understand how, why and when migrations to the Antarctic Region took place. This also raises more questions, which with our current archaeological understanding may not be immediately answered. One thing is certain, however, long, open-sea voyages and/or long over-land treks were undertaken. In looking for the possible voyages to Antarctica, it is necessary to trace their routes and transitions for clues.

PolynesiaPolynesia:: Out of AntarcticaAntarctica???? The Lapita culture is the fore-runner of Polynesian culture and presumed to have originated in South East Asia traveling across the Pacific (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 446). The late essayist and polymath Stephen Jay Gould remarked that his choice for the greatest invention ‘for devouring time and space in all human history ’ was the Polynesian double canoe. Built using stone adzes, the compass-less Polynesians had an ‘unparalleled understanding of stars, waves and currents ’ undertaking long voyages ‘to colonise the greatest emptiness of our Earth ’, the Pacific Ocean (Gould 2001: 109). One of Polynesia's myths tells the tale of Hui-te-Rangiroa who c. AD 800 (c. AD 650 according to Rubin) sailed from Rarotonga, in the Cook Islands, into high seas to a land of bare white rocks and ‘a place of uninterrupted ice'. Is there a basis of fact in this voyage? Except for Polynesian reed maps and their myths (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 332-3; Rubin 2000: 13), there are not many clues as to long voyages. In all likelihood, Hui-te-Rangiroa, may have discovered New Zealand and seen the snow-capped mountains. Nonetheless, he seems to have accomplished this solo trek and made it back to tell the tale. Maps are lacking and if found may be indeterminate of details. But for a culture that lived by-the-sea, they still dreamed of traveling afar to new lands.

The Out of Antarctica Theory However, the late Robert Argod, French naval officer and former professor of navigation in Marseilles, who studied navigation techniques, shipbuilding and origins of the Polynesians, disputes the origins of the Polynesians, postulating that counter to their myths and archaeological evidence, the

Polynesians originated from Antarctica. Argod states that Polynesian myth tells of their homeland being very cold and snow covered. He interprets their original words to refer to snow, penguins, seals and igloos, and not to sand, lizards and houses (Argod 2004: 30-32). For some reason, possibly some tectonic changes, the Antarcticans (Polynesians) left the Ross Sea area and spread across he world, Argod calculating that at 5 knots with favourable winds, the Persian Gulf, Nile, Indus and Red Sea could be reached within a month (Argod 2004: 44 & 269). Argod also claims that ‘seedlings were brought from Antarctica ’ (Argod 2004: 48), though which plants are common to Polynesia and Antarctica is problematical, if possible to determine. Argod does not explain how upon leaving the Antarctic that they completely missed Australia and New Zealand, while sailing the Pacific. Argod uses aspects of Polynesian myths, which talk of them coming from dark, cold lands. But even if they had come from Antarctica, where is the evidence of their past culture and life in the southern Ocean? Where would they get their resources for boats, houses, food, tools and other technology, Argod theorising that at some point they lived in ‘grottoes and caverns and other shelters ’ (Argod 2004: 159)? No food stuffs, animals, plants are attested to be from Antarctica in the archaeological record, which in fact shows that Polynesians are south-east Asian in origin. Argod ’s evidence is lacking and flawed since South America, Australia and New Zealand show a much different colonisation story through DNA/genetics, language and artifact studies. These latter studies feature in Part 3 in regards to the possible anatomy of the Antarcticans. Argo d’s routes from Antarctica to Polynesia are shown in figure --- (compare to Schobinger ’s opposite course), showing the various courses set for numerous lands. Argo d’s theories depend upon Antarctica being affected by a tectonic shift in South America moving from its position (Argod 2004: 57 & 310). But such a catastrophic event must have been recorded through memories, myths, cave paintings, and later through writing (the Biblical deluge notwithstanding as it comes too late in history). Polynesian myths do not compare and though some South American sites show earlier colonisation dates than North America, this can be explained to earlier coastal sites being lost through rising ocean levels and as explained in Part 3. Argod ’s theory is not tenable. If anything, evidence will point to immigration and not emigration of Antarcticans. No indigenous Antarcticans existed.

South Pacific Moving on from Polynesia, Hawaii was probably discovered around AD 500,

Easter Island around AD 800, and New Zealand around AD 1000 (Gamble's dates are AD 300-500, AD 300 and AD 800, respectively; Gamble 1993: 231). And a further five hundred miles east of New Zealand are the Chatham Islands. The inhabitants survived not by agriculture, the weather being too harsh, but by eel fishing, fishing and shell-fishing. Not much is known about them except that by 1835 they had been virtually wiped out by invading Maoris (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 334-5). The Chatham Islands, already another extreme environment, could have been a crossroads or a possible disembarkation point for South America or Antarctica. Its archaeology will have to be studied carefully for any clues about possible connections. Harking back to the end of Polynesian explorations, there is speculation that the Polynesians may have discovered Australia and Tasmania if not for the Little Ice Age (1450-1890) and its effects (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 88, 213), explored in Part 3. The same could be true for early Antarctic explorers during earlier glacial periods. Except for the intriguing Hui-te-Rangiora myth and sailing as far as the Chatham Islands, the Polynesians probably did not discover sub-Antarctica. But other mariners may have. New Zealand, may have had past traffic upon its shores. An ancient earthwork, not Maori in origin, but a thousand years earlier has been found at Kaipara, North Island. The Maori only arrived AD 800. A 10ft, carved statue of a woman bearing none of the distinctive Maori artwork was found as well as other pre-Maori stone structures. A local Maori oral tradition talks of a race that was on the island before them, the descendents of which were the Waitaha who are now a Maori tribe. A recent blood test on a Waitaha woman turned out to be similar to Peruvian people. The Waitaha fled to South Island to escape the incoming new race, but claim that they knew about the earthwork. Not only is there artifactual evidence, but there are also organic remains. Radiocarbon dates from rat bones on South Island are 2000 years old and could only have come to be on the island due to human agency since New Zealand had no indigenous mammals (Chapman 1998). With a possible South American sailing technology, 200BC, explorations may have led to other discoveries. Colonisation of Antarctica via Australia and South America are the likely contenders. But the routes are more indirect and complex. Critics may argue that if the Aborigine did not discover New Zealand, less than 2000 kilometres away, then how could they have discovered Antarctica. Barring a discovery of ancient Aborigine sites or artefacts on New Zealand, works such as my own and others are trying to find and present data to persuade those critics otherwise.

AustraliaAustralia:: Crossroads and CrossbreedsCrossbreeds???? Most of the earliest sites are on Australia's southeast side. The Willandra

area in New South Wales was once a land of lakes with fish, shellfish and marsupials, but it is now a dry, desert-shrub region (Stringer and McKie 1997: 162). The now dried-out Lake Mungo, located in the Willandra area has hearths dated to 32,000 BP and the oldest Australian skull at 25,000 BP. Keilor in Victoria has flaked tools and other remains from 30,000 BP (Gowlett 1994: 138-9; Stringer and McKie 1997: 162). Swan River near Perth was dated by carbonised wood to 39,500 BP, while Thermoluminescence (TL) dating has the site of Malakunanja up to 60,000 BP. Though the technique is controversial, it is widely accepted since the site overlies sterile sands (Gamble 1993: 215). Other controversial sites, like Kow Swamp once lead some Australian archaeologists to float theories of an Australian entry date at 60,000-70,000 years ago by South East Asian Homo erectus , a theory of Alan Thorne, which was then precluded by skeletal studies by Brothwell in 1972. Kow Swam p is now dated to 9,500 to 8000BC with some evidence for 14,000BC (Mithen 2003: 313-4; Gowlett 1994: 139). Forty burials had been found associated with ochre, shells, stone artifacts and animal teeth, while across the river, a further 126 burials had been found at Coobool Creek. These remains were robust in form with rugged and thick bones. Peter Brown of the Australian National Museum also cited skull deformation features similar to Melanesian practices of skull binding. But were these robust features, skull deformation and burials evidence of an inherited inbreeding because of their isolation or a deliberate action to identify themselves and claim land from others if the area was relatively densely populated and resources sparse (Mithen 2003: 313-316). The general consensus is that the Americas were first populated by peoples crossing the Bering Strait c.12,000 years ago. But the BBC2 programme Ancient Voices: Hunt for the First Americans reveals that others may have crossed the oceans and arrived prior to the accepted date. The route is sketchy, but if proved correct then not only will history have to be rewritten, but it also indicates that some of the longest sea voyages in history were made to achieve this feat, whether to the Pacific side of South America or around Cape Horn, possibly with sub-Antarctic islands being discovered along the way. The story of Luzia will be told in regards to Brazil. But if the evidence is true would presuppose an ancient sailing technology for the Australians to reach the Americas. The Tiwi, Aborigines of Bathurst Island, off northern Australia, are a sea people, unlike other Aborigine tribes who have no seafaring capabilities . But were their ancestors or other Aborigines capable of seafaring? Grahame Walsh is a rock-art specialist and has discovered the world's oldest depiction of a boat in North Kimberley, Western Australia with dates ranging from 17,000 to 50,000 years ago, as related to the spear-throwing and other technology shown in the art-work known from that date (Harsent 1999: 8). Specifically, Walsh

indicates the high prow of the boat signifying an ocean-going craft (Harsent 1999: 13). Had an accidental voyage been made, or a more determined fleet of vessels searching for new land and beginnings, maybe even escaping warfare or a changing environment? Australia, now, has northern tropical forests, a desert centre, temperate forests and even once had southern ice sheets recently. But after its split from Antarctica and South America 45 million years ago, conditions were much different (Stringer and McKie 1997: 162), with present Australian coastal lines formed 6,000 years ago (Gamble, 1993, 218) at the same time that a maritime lifestyle was just beginning in Tasmania and coincidentally in Patagonia (Mithen 2003: 310-11; Mena 1997: 51). The more certain dates indicate that sea-faring craft were in use 20,000 years before other such craft in the world (Stringer and McKie 1996: 163) and thus could also have been in use to a much later date and for longer journeys. This suggests a pedigree of sea travel in Australia. But is it difficult to discern from where and exactly when migration from Australia could have occurred. Many sites around Australia are over 20,000 years old, such as Karolta, Koonalda Cave and Willandra Lakes, with at least Koonalda Cave located toward the Southern Ocean (Gamble 1993: 218). Once a skill has been acquired, it does not seem to have been lost. Some in Australia, like the Tiwi, seemed to have retained or regained this sea-faring skill. These dates and the physical remains behind them are examined more in Part 3. Curiously, Australian lithic technology remained non-changing until 6,500BC, when spear-throwers became abundant and adaptable tools (Mithen 2003: 324 & 552) and also surprisingly, agriculture was not practiced. Mithen believes that the Aborigine may have been ‘affluent ’ enough not to need it (Mithen 2003: 305 & 338), with a mobile, small-unit, hunter-gatherer lifestyle enough to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. This may have had a bearing on the origins of dreamtime, a coping system in response to environmental changes during the Holocene. Stories from generation to generation about the changing environment would have transgressed from mythology to factual (Mithen 2003: 333 & 335), ingraining a sense of belonging and sacredness to the land.

Tasmania By 6,500 BC, northern Australia and New Guinea were separated by the Arafura Sea, following a post-glacial sea rise (Mithen 2003: 330). By this time Tasmania, less than 1000 km from Southern Ocean sea ice, had been inhabited for almost thirty thousand years as evidenced at Ballawinne Cave and Wargata Cave by tools, wallaby bones, glass knives, and cave art (Mithen 2003: 306-7). Kutikina Cave (18,000BC), Cave Bay Cave (15,000BC) now an island 6km north of Tasmania, and King Island, now 100km south of Australia are other

sites, which Mithen asserts were home to the ‘southernmost inhabitants of the Ice-age world ’ (Mithen 2003: 306 & 309). But were they? The ancient Tasmanians remains were found to be short, robust and stocky, probably for heat retention; thus they were not relative newcomers of a tropical origin (Mithen 2003: 310). Then something happened to the Tasmanians, for a paucity of sites is revealed around 10,000 to 6,000 BC. Either there was a migration event or widespread death or the archaeological record is incomplete. For me, the latter explanation is more likely, for when the Tasmanians do return, they have an acquired maritime lifestyle (Mithen 2003: 310-11). Where did the Tasmanians disappear to, if at all? The climate was slowly changing becoming more arid and unlike Australia, whose mega fauna had disappeared by 20,000BC, the megafauna in Tasmania had disappeared by 35,000BC before humans had even arrived. By 6,000BC, Tasmania was separated from Australia (Mithen 2003: 315-17). I doubt that the Tasmanians totally disappeared. As the land changed due to sea levels rising, they either concentrated inland at sites yet to be found, migrated to Australia or lived at coastal sites, which have also disappeared. During this four thousand year gap, when a sea-going technology was invented, acquired from elsewhere, or a new cultural group had arrived, could they have sailed to New Zealand, the Chatham Islands or even drifted to Antarctica? Australia and Tasmania could offer another route to the Americas and/or Antarctica.

South AmericaAmerica:::: The Disappearing Past Brazil The story of Luzia was partially told with regards to Australian voyages. This remarkable skull was found at the site of Lapa Vermelha IV (dated from 11,960 BP to 10,200 BP), in the Sierra da Capivaria, northeast Brazil, in the 1970s. A rock shelter was found containing the skull of what would turn out to be a woman, aged around 20 years old. But the archaeological age was old, over eleven thousand years old (11,500 BP) and similar in shape to Penon woman ’s skull (long and narrow), which is older than any other skull in the Americas and also to Kennewick Man (discussed in Part 6). The age was also confirmed by rock-art in the shelter supposedly depicting pre-Indian, ice-age, giant armadillos. Also on this level were stone flakes, core tools and ground sloth bone dated to 10,200 BP to 9,850 BP. There was also evidence for an earlier occupation from 25,000 BP to 15,300 BP) based on quart cores, flakes and unifacial tools. And not far away was the controversial site of Pedra Furada where charcoal and animal bone samples were yielding contestable dates of up to fifty thousand years ago. But as Dillehay warns, more work needs to be done at these sites in order to fully understand and accept them (Webster 2005: 1-

3; Dillehay 2000: 199; Harsent 1999: 3-6). If the skull is actually associated with the rock art, then this could only indicate that the Americas had been occupied long before current theories hold them to be. But who were these people and where had they come from? When prominent Brazilian biological anthropologist Dr. Walter Neves measured the skull, through craniometry, and when leading forensic artist Richard Neave recreated the features, it was found that Luzia was not the expected Mongoloid type [I use Mongoloid to refer to Paleo-Indian ancestors], but of an Afro-Australian type. Neves believes that the skull is related to modern-day hunters on the Indian Ocean rim, East Africa, Australia and Melanesia, who unlike the North East Asian/Siberian types, have the long faces, narrow heads of Tibeto-Chinese/South Asian and Australian cultures. Luzia has a long face, narrow head (Dillehay 2000: 237; Harsent 1999: 7). But these are all over 8,000 miles away. Neves' comparisons are controversial, the accuracy of which are in doubt and disputed. Dillehay himself notes two types of skeletons in the early South American Holocene, robust and gracile (Dillehay 2000: 228). But could this be due to gender, discussed later? Where did Luzia come from? Fifty more ‘unmongoloid Paleoamerican remains ’ have been found in the Lagoa Santa area near to Luzia ’s site. The area was small enough for the group to be labeled a cemetery. Webster suggests a settlement area that needs to be investigated further (Webster 2005: 2). Did Luzia and her group migrate from Australia going east to South America and around Cape Horn or across the Andes and the Amazon? Both are intriguing theories, but which, if any, are true? In fact, George Webster, President of the Andaman Association, when first seeing the reconstructed ‘Luzia ’ thought her to have negritoid, rather than Australoid features and places her in the Andaman classification (Webster 2005: 2). The Andamans are a group of islands in the Bay of Bengal, India. But how could an ocean crossing from the Pacific to Australia have taken place? What of Australia's ocean-going traditions? Does this indicate a maritime technology that was abandoned and forgotten? However these Afro-Australians did came to be in Brazil, where did they disappear to? Archaeologist John Gowlett imagines log-lashed crafts, rather than fire-cut canoes, that were accidentally blown off-course. Forty to sixty thousand years ago Sahul, the co-joined Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania, was only 100 kilometres away from continental Asia and may have been crossed during that time (Gowlett 1994: 136). Eighteen thousand years ago, during the last glacial maximum, the sea was 130 metres lower than today with gaps of only 65 kilometres (Gamble 1993: 216). Rather than fire-cut canoes, Gamble sees ‘simple wooden and bark punts ’ as effective enough to cross these gaps. Enough people would have had to of travelled across to start a sustainable

population. Birdsell reckons that a starting population of twenty-five people would have been enough (Gamble 1993: 216). The trip from Asia to Sahul was possible and quite possibly some of these populations could have travelled from one island continent to the southernmost island continent. During Brazil's 500th year anniversary of discovery, Amazonian Indians protested against the genocide waged against them by the Colonialist Europeans. Their population over the last 500 years had dropped from 6 million to the current 300,000. But there are indications that the Amazonians were not the first Amazonians. This derives from discoveries in sites like Pedra Furada, Brazil and Monte Verde, Chile that are older than 12,000 BP the accepted date of American colonization. Walter Neves carried out tests on six hundred 12,000 year old skulls, facial bones and teeth finding that they were more Australian-African than of Mongoloid Indian type (Lamb 1999). Other Neves cranial morphological studies on early skulls (like six skulls from Santana do Riacho dated 8,200 to 9,500 years ago) also revealed an affinity with South Asian, modern Australian or even African types and not to North East Asia/ Siberian types (Hecht 2003: 17), the type that supposedly first colonised the Americas. This was also the finding of Gonzalez (Adler 2006: 44). Two such independent tests must mean that the evidence is correct and that the Americas were a crossroads to at least two or three migrations. Neves believes that Australia and the surrounding islands are the ‘last surviving territory of a once-vast Aboriginal homeland that covered much of east and southeast Asia'. Going by his examinations of skulls from Brazil and Columbia, dated to 14,000 to 10,000 years ago, he believes that the Americas were first inhabited by Australian Aborigines, whose skulls are identical to the ones he studied, such as a skull from Kow Swamp, northern Victoria. The Je Indians of southern Brazil and the extinct Tierra del Fuego Indians also ‘preserve physical and linguistic Aboriginal traits'. Australia was inhabited around 60,000 years ago by crossing the Timor gap. The Americas could have been reached by island hopping (Sieveking 1998). Scientists estimate that it would have taken 6,000 years to migrate from the Bering Strait to Chile and Brazil (counter to Paul Martin's 1000 year migration to explain his Megafaunal Extinction theory). A first migration around 12,000 years ago or earlier in South America by Australian-African was followed by a later Indian wave 9,000 years ago. DNA studies are now being conducted upon the skulls (Lamb 1999). But the Indian Organisation for the Brazilian Amazon is angered at the accusation of genocide on their part on prior indian populations stating that ‘such speculation is an insult to us' acknowledging that ‘different groups have dominated at different times'. To them it is an attempt by the Colonial powers to distance themselves from the 500-year ill-treatment of Indians (Lamb 1999).

But Neves has his own theories. Following his studies, Neves once conjectured that the non-Mongoloids were either forced out of their region, wiped out by or interbred with the southbound Mongoloids c.9000 ago attested to by violent rock art images of this period (Harsent 1999: 14-5). Neves ’ m ore recent streamlined theory, sees two migrations, one from South East Asia around 14,000 years ago who raced down the pacific coast rather than the icebound interior. These peoples were related to the long, narrow-skulled Australians and Polynesians. The second, later wave of shorter-skulled people occurred around 11,000 years ago from North East Asia who ventured through the then ice-free interior. This comprised a larger group that then dominated the previous occupants (Hecht 2003: 17). Neves disagrees with others, like University of New Mexico anthropologist Joseph Powell, who believes that the migration was all from South East Asia and that adaptation and microevolution over 10,000 to 12,000 years forced a change in skull shapes. Neves sees 8000 years as too sudden for such a change (Hecht 2003: 17). If Neves ' measurements and interpretations are correct then non-Mongoloids were in the Americas long before Mongoloids who later replaced them? So, as asked before, where did they disappear to? In the remote Tierra del Fuego, islands off the southern tip of South America, Neves has again encountered the non-Mongoloid type skull in the form of the Fuegians. Two sisters, Cristina and Ursala Calderon are descendants of the Fuegians and Neves believes, due to his studies of the sisters' skulls and those in a local museum, that the Fuegians are ‘the result of interbreeding between the non-Mongoloids and the Mongoloids' (Harsent 1999: 15-6). Neve s’ fellow Brazilian Marta Lahr, who has also performed cranial measurements, believes that the Fuegians are a Mongoloid/non-Mongoloid mix and that they survived because of their isolation (Dillehay 2000: 236). But as stated before Neves ’ skull measurements, to some, are considered unscientific and racist, especially when considering Dillehay ’s views on differing migrating types. There was probably not a full-scale migration at times, just small groups arriving, mixing, moving on or disappearing all together. Luzia may have been Asian, but of a type not now extant. These points are explored again in Part 3. Whether or not Luzia is Asian or Australasian, could she and other possible descendants of non-Mongoloids have been pushed toward Tierra del Fuego in order to survive, again across water, skills more specialised than are suggested in South America for that time? We shall now examine Tierra del Fuego in more detail.

Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia Geographic regions

Tierra del Fuego is situated at the southern end of South America, in the tip of the 900,000 square kilometre Patagonia region, with the Andes to the west running southward, bordered by the rugged central plateaux and fairer plains on the east coast. Tierra del Fuego ’s I sla Grande is separated from Patagonia by the Strait of Magellan, while the Beagle Channel separates the other smaller islands from the main Tierra del Fuego mass. Andean influenced storm systems, ice fields, morainic ridges and eastern outwash plains are the dominant features (McCulloch et al., 1997: 12). The ice fields stem from a combination of warm, moist air currents, and cold Humboldt currents from the Pacific Ocean. Temperature-wise, mean averages over Patagonia range from 5 °C to 8 °C (McCulloch et al., 1997: 16) which is similar to the mean temperature for the sub-Antarctic (see pg 3 & Fig. 5), thus indigenous peoples would have been acclimatized to Antarctic conditions. Patagonia endured glacial cycles throughout its formation. The last worldwide glacial maximum occurred c.21,000 to 19,000 BP and progressively declined eastward each successive glacial (see fig 9) (McCulloch et al., 1997: 22). The last Patagonian glacial occurred around 14,500 BP. Sea levels were 120 metres lower than today ’s levels, enough to leave Tierra del Fuego connected terrestrially to Patagonia via the Primera and Segunda Angosturas (two high narrow points with dry land at least 40 metres in depth in between). These high points were then breached by rising tides around 9,000 BP (see fig. 10) (McCulloch et al., 1997: 23). Before this time humans could have crossed over into Tierra del Fuego. Since only about twenty percent of South America was directly affected by glaciers, migrants could have found a wide variety of habitats to exploit on their way south even before 11,000 BP (Dillehay 2000: 60). The Strait of Magellan found its final formation cemented around 8,000 BP separating the rest of the islands from Patagonia, its levels reaching 4-7 metres above today ’s levels around 6,000 to 5,000 BP. These levels receded c.500 BP producing shingle ridges and raised beaches (McCulloch 1997: 27). These could have been used as occupational platforms. Other environmental factors are alluded to by the dating of tephra deposits from the c.12,000 BP eruption of Volcan Reclus, which revealed that temperatures were 3 °C cooler in the Andean region. Around this time, and after 12,000 BP, the land-bridge to Tierra del Fuego may have opened and closed several times, evidenced by succeeding beds of sediment layers around the Primara and Segunda Angosturas (McCulloch et al., 1997: 24-25). So if 14,000 to 12,000 BP represent clear-cut opportunities of crossing into Tierra del Fuego before it became permanently cut off, how could inhabitants have survived? If inhabitants had crossed to Tierra del Fuego, during that time, they would have found a challenging land 3 °C to 6 °C cooler than today, with very dry, tundra-like conditions.

Fauna and Botanical Faunal aspects have already been covered in the megafaunal extinction theory and will be discussed more in Part 3. In contrast to the Antarctic Region, Tierra del Fuego possesses an abundance of vegetation (Figure 11). Starting from the east coastal area are the low and dry Patagonian steppes dominated by shrub-grasslands. As the land rises toward the west, forests of southern beech ( Nothofagus betuloides ) and other evergreens spill across the land shared by the deciduous Nothofagus Pumilio, the Nothofagus Antarctica , and more shrubs. These forests butt up against some of the largest ice fields outside of Antarctica, which also claim the cordillera region of Tierra del Fuego becoming more extensive toward the Patagonian northwest. The bog-plagued Magellanic-moorlands stretch mostly along the west of Tierra del Fuego, receiving the most rainfall and wind (McCulloch et al., 1997: 16-18). But these are present-day conditions. What were they like in the past? Glacial action shaped the Patagonia landscape with temperatures at 12,000 BP 3ºC lower than today. Pollen studies indicate grass began to emerge around 10,000 BP to 12,000 BP. Trees, like Nothofagus varieties, began to spread eastward around this time as well, with a short stunted interval when the eastern steppe halted tree expansion as lower precipitation levels ensued. But around 8,000 BP, pollen data shows that an increase in precipitation accompanied an eastward tree expansion (McCulloch et al., 1997: 25-26). Trees would become an important asset to the later Fuegian Indians, who could then build shelter, tools, weapons and transport. With other resources, early possible migrants could have survived the barren and cold landscape c. 14,000 to 12,000 BP.

Cultures of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego Before 11,000 BP One of the most significant sites in South America is Monte Verde, Chile excavated by Thomas Dillehay, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, who produced evidence dating the site to 12,500 BP. It broke the ‘time barrier ’ of the North American Clovis Culture sites, which advocates (like Paul Martin and Thomas Lynch, among others) maintained were the oldest in the Americas and that this culture had swept through the Americas initiating the megafauna extinctions through rampant hunting. But Dillehay also found that part of Monte Verde may have been inhabited around 33,000 BP. Charcoal and unifacial-like stones, both possibly human made were found. This early date does correspond to palaeological data indicating that an interglacial beech forest and moors had existed at this time. Dillehay

believes that transient explorers had come that way leaving few remains (Dillehay 2000: 161, 167-8). But importantly no human remains were found, so that their origin (Mongoloid or Australasian) or form (robust or gracile) could not be determined. Dillehay hopes to produce more convincing evidence before validating the earlier site. If the 33,000 BP date is anomalous, there are other sites that are near- contemporaneous to Monte Verd e’s 12,500 BP date. All are associated with tools or animal bones or hearths, like Los Toldos (12,600 BP) in Southern Patagonia, Fel l’s Cave (11,000-10,700 BP) by the Strait of Magellan, Tres Arroyes (11,880-10,280 BP), and Cueva 1 and Cueva 4 del Lago Sofia (11,570 BP and 11,590 BP, respectively). Dillehay sees this preponderance of pre-11,000 BP sites as good evidence that Patagonia was inhabited by at least 11,000 BP (Dillehay 2000 209-214). For me, this indicates that while glacial periods kept people from travelling further south, the intent to colonise was there. Whether from land or sea, the first migrants to the Americas could not have been vast in number and thus could not have exceeded their needs. When the time arose, these peoples headed further south into Tierra del Fuego, and perhaps further.

Post 11,000 Argentine archaeologist Luis Borrero sees Tierra del Fuego habitation as a dispersion process, rather than a migration through hunting opportunities around 11,000 BP. By 8000 BP, the Strait of Magellan had effectively cut off Tierra del Fuego from the main-land and later populations may have changed genetically, morphologically and culturally by a process Borrero calls the ‘founder effect ’ (Borrero 1997: 62). Could this have happened to the Antarcticans? How much different, depending on the time of migration, culture and environment would Antarcticans be from their progenitors? But Borrero suggests that after Tierra del Fuego became separated from northern Patagonia that these first populations, post-separation (c.8000 BP) became extinct. For this, he cites the relative few sites found from periods around 9,000 BP to 2,500 BP in north Tierra del Fuego, after which site numbers increase (Borrero 1997: 62). But to me, this could reflect lack of archaeological data and/or coastal site destruction due to rising sea levels or glaciations. This is also the pattern for Tasmania. Surely humans had lingered on in an ‘invisible ’ state until populations grew and more sites were established. This could then be followed by a demonstrated period of settled life after 2,500 BP from a mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Further, Borrero sees that this initial failed colonisation was succeeded by a successful colonisation whose descendents met the arriving Europeans (Borrero 1997: 64). A surviving population is not ruled out however, due to the reasons above.

Post-Columbian era When the Europeans did arrive in the 15 th and 16 th centuries, they ‘saw ’ two separate cultures, one terrestrial, the other a canoe peoples (see figure 12). The latter include the Kaweskar of the Western Channels and the more northerly Chonos of the Chonos and Guaitecus archipelagos, Chile, but we shall focus on the Yamana (Yahgan) of the Beagle Channel and Cape Horn, all of whom seemed to rely mostly upon marine animals and resources for survival. It is argued however that the comparative descriptions ‘terrestrial ’ and ‘canoe ’ are not strictly correct. Archaeological evidence has produced over-lapping data, with certain cultural adaptations being shared or ethnographic reporting blurring terrestrial/canoe peoples ’ traits. Though ‘fundamental distinctions ’ do remain between the two peoples, including language, archaeological and ethnographical data, Borrero concludes that only the adaptive strategy was different (Borrero 1997: 64-66). Huts, or wig-wam-like structures, were built for protection against the winter cold, with guanaco clothing worn for extra warmth. Charles Darwin was met by six Fuegians in a canoe, and described the Indians as ‘excellent swimmers ’ with ‘expertly crafted technology [with] sophisticated hunting and gathering methods ’ (Mithen 2003: 260). Also seal oil was rubbed into the skin affording protection from cold with a high-caloric, spoonful of the oil taken during winter. The Calderon sisters of the Yamana also stated that fires could be kept lit ‘indefinitely' even on the move a nd in canoes, where a layer of damp grass was kept beneath a small fire (Harsent 1999: 17). When Charles Darwin visited the Ona of Tierra del Fuego, he said of them that ‘Their red skins filthy and greasy...' (Stringer and McKie 1996: 160). Could this be a reference, though uttered in ignorance by Darwin, of the protective seal oil that may have appeared to make the skin look greasy, but which actually protected it from the cold? The pure-bred Ona, are extinct, but Darwin goes on to say that the Ona resembled no other Indian (Stringer and McKie 1996: 160) and thus may be from an earlier migration. DNA tests on well-preserved remains could resolve this issue. In the meantime, the Fuegians ’ adaptability suggests that a superior knowledge of the environment had been built up over time necessitating a long period of time to have acquired such specialised knowledge, unless they had already possessed such knowledge from elsewhere. But 8,300 years ago, on a shoreline only 90 miles from Cape Horn, at Túnel, the Yámana Indians were making harpoons, bird bone awls and tubular beads. They had huts of Antarctic beech and along with other tribes lived on Tierra del Fuego up until the arrival of the Europeans (Parfit 2000: 66). Archaeologist José Luis Lanata states:

There is a misconception that people needed hundreds of years to adapt to an environment. But people survived in the Americas because they could cope with risky situations at any moment. Human fitness is more dynamic than all of us think.' (Parfit 2000: 66)

So the Fuegians, whether or not descended from Luzia's people, counter to my previous thoughts, could have developed their culture relatively quickly in order to survive. At the time of Luzia's arrival, c. 12,000 years ago, the coastline would have been different, lower due to glaciations, but even as the ice receded, glaciated and tundra-like environments would have clung to lower southwest South America. Even Monte Verde in south Chile, a suspected landing site at 14,500 years ago, would have been chilly grassland (Parfit 2000: 46-7). Intriguingly, charcoal fragments have been found in various locations dating to 10,000 to 9,000 BP. Though archaeologist Robert McCulloch and his colleagues do not specify exact areas except Fuego-Patagonia, he accepts this as an indicator of dry conditions and natural phenomena like lightning or bush fires. But Luis Borrero, Heuser, and Salemme disagree, citing this as data for the evidence of human activity at this time (McCulloch et al., 1997: 26-27). Be that as it may, I believe that even if the charcoal was not the by-product of human activity that humans were on Tierra del Fuego at this time. Even if the Strait of Magellan and the Beagle Channel had been crossed early on by canoe-people, their presence in previous coastal settlements could now be flooded or undetected. Finding these sites, now submerged will be a difficult, but important task. Apart from Tierra del Fuego, the Isla de los Estados, laying about 55 kilometres away from Peninsula Mitre, has evidence of habitation from 2,500 BP. It has always been apart from Tierra del Fuego. There are no remains, but Borrero believes that the island was inhabited by a ‘canoe ’ people, though the only artefacts found are lithics comparable to the northern, non-maritime Fuegians (Borrero 1997: 79). Borrero concludes that a great inter- changeability and non-exclusivity of traits existed even though the peoples were characterised by definite sea/land traits. He attributes this to intermarriage between the Yamana and the ‘terrestrial ’ Haush and Selk ’nam groups whose similarities are striking (Borrero 1997: 79,83). Another set of islands with as-of-yet undiscovered prehistoric remains are the Falkland Islands, 500 kilometres from South America. A bleak land, the largest fauna found was a fox, with no indigenous peoples reported at the time of the 1764 European Bougainville settlement (Gamble 1993: 238). That distance, 500km, is comparable to the Antarctic Island s’ distance from Patagonia and the Antarctic

Peninsula. But were the Fuegians capable of building ocean-going boats described by Walsh in his rock art from North Kimberley, Australia? And are there any Fuegian myths, art-work or rituals that can shed light on their origins? These and other aspects will be discussed in more detail in Part 3. Where was the original entry point by boat to South America? Neves and others believe a north to south migration of the non-Mongoloids which given their supposed journey from Australia is even more daunting either across the Andes (via Monte Verde?) and the Amazon basin or round Cape Horn and sailing for Brazil. Their subsequent ‘exile' to Tierra del Fuego and perhaps the sub-Antarctic would be another remarkable feat. Around Tierra del Fuego and the sub-Antarctic, sunken areas of coastline could be searched for evidence of ocean-crossing boats preserved in mud, bogs and waterlogged environments. If Neves is correct, then Tierra del Fuego may not have been the last resting place of the Fuegians. If he is wrong then the region could still hold clues as to the first inhabitants of the Americas. Either way, the Fuegians have shown themselves to be adaptable to an environment that few can appreciate let alone survive. It is not hard to see that there were ancient peoples capable of long ocean voyages and of adapting to differing environmental conditions. Australia's colonisation could prove vital in uncovering information with links to further colonisations in South America and eventually Antarctica. The technology was there, as was the survival knowledge and the time to migrate. All that is lacking is the hard evidence. As stated before, Schobinger rules out Pacific migrations until 3000 BC, though I beg to differ, his only defense is lack of ‘definitive proof' (Schobinger 1994: 17). But in trying to define when peoples could have entered South America, I found that after the Wisconsin interglacial, 70,000 years ago, there were 3 periods at 50,000 to 40,000 years ago, 28,000 to 25,000 years ago and 13,000 to 10,000 years ago, respectively, when a land-bridge from Siberia to Alaska was available and a possible ice-free corridor south through Canada. So during glacial times, peoples could have navigated the milder western coasts of the Americas. Further, until 15,000 BC the Isthmus of Panama was still below water and also until 13,000 BC Tierra del Fuego was still glaciated (see figure 10). Only around 2,000 BC when the glaciers retreated were current ocean levels around Tierra del Fuego like today (Schobinger 1994: 12-3). So if peoples were in South America that early (at Monte Verde c. 14,500 BP and Pedra Furada c. 12,000 BP) then they either crossed the ‘Panama Sea' by crude boats, sailed down the North and South American west coasts from Asia, or took an ocean route via Australia. Either way, I believe that the Pacific was in early use if only to ‘map' the

currents, winds and seasonal variances to prepare for long fishing trips and journeys, purposive or not. Figure 13 shows theorised routes and times for travel to South America and Antarctica as discussed in this work.

Other VoyagesVoyages:::: PrePre----ColumbianColumbian Maps Controversy surrounds the subject matter of this particular section, for it delves into what some would call ‘New Age archaeology ’, but as I have stated I am not looking for Atlantis, lost civilizations or aliens. But over the years, researchers, historians, writers, enthusiasts and others while researching data about the so-called lost continent of Atlantis have encountered some intriguing data, which explored in the cold light of objectivity, could explain anomalous artifacts, maps and information, leading us to pre-Columbian Antarctic exploration. As seen above, modern explorations to the far south Atlantic began in the 1500s (i.e. post Columbus in 1492), but there are ‘mysterious ’ maps purportedly depicting accurate dimensions of Antarctica in the 16 th century, unimaginably far too soon in such a time and 300 odd years before Antarctica ’s official discovery. So what is going on? Totally disregarding tales of Roman wrecks off the Brazilian coast or Egyptian or Phoenician ocean crossings or Atlanteans themselves making the maps, how could these accurate and verified authentic maps have been made at such a time? And why are the maps ignored by the scholarly profession? These just are n’t any old maps, random doodles, or fanciful projections. Some of them are by famous cartographers and the accuracy of those and other maps are far too coincidental to have come from just the fertile imaginations of Renaissance men. They must have had copies from earlier source maps or renditions from descriptions. Either way, Antarctica’s coastline seems to have been mapped much earlier than originally thought. So what could that mean for early explorations or colonization of Antarctica? Probably the most famous of these early maps depicting Antarctica is the Piri R e’is map, a portolan from 1513, drawn with‘the help of documents seized from a Spanish pilot who had made three of Christopher Columbus ’s four crossing of the Atlantic ’, supposedly showing an ice-free Antarctica (Argod 2004: 166). This map, discovered in 1929 Constantinople was made by the Turkish Admiral Piri Re ’is. Professor Charles Hapgood from Keene State College, New Hampshire who propelled the Piri Re ’is map to stardom in his books Earth ’s shifting Crust (1958) and Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (originally published in 1966), but with the map supporting his theories for an Atlantis Kingdom. Regarding the map ’s discovery, Hapgood notes that Turkish nationalism was sweeping the country at the time and that such a discovery like the Piri Re ’is map would have been auspicious (Hapgood 1996: 1). This

alone raises questions about its authenticity. But why would such a map, and such an accurate one at that, be faked and at such a time? Antarctica ’s coastline were not fully mapped until the 1950s (Crossley 2000: 40) yet this map was discovered in 1929 and Turkey only ratified the Antarctic Treaty in 1995 (Rubin 2000: 361), though has no claim to any part of Antarctica or a part in its discovery. Nevertheless, after studies by American cartographers and naval personnel at the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office in 1956, it was concluded that the ‘southernmost part of the map represented bays and islands of the Antarctic coast and Queen Maud Land ’ (Hapgood 1966: 2). So with the authenticity of the map ’s representations sufficiently established, I believe the Piri Re ’is map to be real cartographic evidence for exploration to Antarctica. But when was this exploration?

Ancient Antarctic Maps The Piri Re ’is map is not the only 16 th century map purported to show Antarctic. The Oronteus Finaeus map of 1531, called ‘Terra Australis Re, center immensa, sed nondii plena cognita ’ (‘Regions of the Southern Land, an immense center, but not fully known to this day ’) also apparently shows an accurate depiction of Antarctica, though scale problems probably arose due to copying errors or compiling original maps with differing scales (Argod 2004: 161; Hapgood 1996: 79, 83 & 89). The famous Mercator (Gerhard Kremer), from whom modern latitude charts harkens, drew Antarctica in both his 1538 and 1569 Atlases (Argod 2004: 168-170; Hapgood 1996: 102, 106). He may have been working from Finaeus’map or earlier source maps. But did he include Antarctica because of certain knowledge or to balance off his maps? German cartographer Johannes Schöner in 1520 depicted ‘Brasilia Inferior ’a separate piece of land in the south Atlantic and different to ‘Papagalli Terra’(Land of the parrots) as Brasil was then known (Argod 2004: 160-161). Lastly, Athanasius Kirche r’s 1665 Mundus Subterraneus shows a remarkable depiction of Antarctica (Flem-Ath & Flem-Ath 1995:133). Even with Latitudinal or scale and copy errors, Kircher ’s work carried on a long tradition of depicting a large southerly island continent, accurately and where none had yet been discovered. And though the Flem-Aths and Hapgood are Atlantis hunters, the discovery of possible early maps of Antarctica does not presuppose the existence of Atlantis on Antarctica, only that there is an early map of Antarctica before its discovery. Argod assumes, and probably rightly so, that maps predate writing, as peoples migrated via coasts and drew outlines of what they saw (Argod 2004: 150). Of course, most of these maps were on perishable material, like wood or animal skins and would be lost in the archaeological record. Another controversial map, not related to Antarctica but nonetheless part of our story, is the famous Vinland map. As discussed later, the map was

originally dated to between 1420 and 1440 (a curious spread of years to be dated to, as will be seen later.) The Vinland map vindicated the Norse claims of discovering North America (Highfield 2002). Recently it has been denounced as a fake, but I think that the researchers missed several points, also discussed later. But the maps do n’t stop there. Other maps dating from just after the Columbus voyages show parts of the world that could not have been mapped so soon, including the Waldseemüller map of 1507 depicting Central America; the Cantino map of 1502 revealing an accurate representation of coastal and interior Africa; and the Jean Rotz map of 1542 bearing Australia over 200 years before Cook discovered it. As Gavin Menzies, author and historian, states ‘What nobody has explained is why the European explorers had maps. Who drew the maps? ’ Menzies goes on to explain that the letters and logs of European explorers, including Columbus, clearly state that they had maps. ‘They knew where they were going before they set out’ (Grice 2002). However, the consequences of having these pre-Columbian maps of Antarctica, prompts Argod to suggest that some previous civilization had already mapped Antarctica ’s coastline ‘before it froze over ’. Further, for Argod, this civilization was forced to leave Antarctica following a cataclysmic change, as discussed below in regards to works by Hapgood, Flem-Ath, and Barbeiro (Argod 2004: 170-72). So who did draw the first maps? How authentic are they? If Antarctica was discovered by ancient Americans or Australasians, then why were the only copies of Antarctic maps found in the possession of Europeans? Highly competitive explorations may explain this in Europe, but if the more ‘primitive ’ New Worlders had maps of their own and other lands, then what treasures could have been burned or destroyed by the European conquerors of the New World and Australia? You may be asking yourself, why all these maps matter and what have they to do with Antarctica? Well as asked before it has more to do with who drew the first maps? These maps may have a more modern origin. A more plausible source of the maps was already at hand and ready to take on the world.

SinoanSinoan----AntarcticaAntarcticaAntarctica:: Chinese WhispersWhispers???? Retired Royal Navy submarine Commanding Officer, Gavin Menzies, has written a remarkable book 1421 – The Year China Discovered The World (2002) in which he theorises that the Chinese sailed, discovered and mapped much of the unknown world in 1421, seventy years before Columbus discovered the Americas. In their huge 480 foot-long ships accompanied by an armada of hundreds of merchant junks and other warships, the Chinese voyages around the world including Africa, North and South America, Australia and Antarctica, lasted

two years. The Chinese fleet was very accomplished, far more than any European navy and as Menzies contends throughout the book were far more adept at reckoning longitude and latitude. In fact, it was how Australia and Antarctica were discovered three centuries before Cook even sailed to the south Atlantic. Menzies recounts the voyage of one Admiral Hong Bao who was tasked with sailing to the South Pole in order to fix the positions of southerly stars for aid in navigation maps and charts. The Chinese already knew of the southern star Canopus and the Southern Cross stars, Crucis Gamma and Crucis Alpha. Hong Bao may have sailed as far as Graham Land on the Antarctic Peninsula in 1422, which is depicted as largely ice free in the Piri Re ’is map as shown in figure 14 (Menzies 2002: 141-2). Also, the Falkland Islands may hold two important clues to possible Chinese voyages. There are two on-going investigations, one searching the ground on Mount Adams for possible Chinese carved stones which may have been used to sight Canopus for navigation purposes (Menzies 2002: 128-9) and secondly investigations into the warrah, a thought-to-be indigenous, but now extinct fox or wolf-like animal whose origins are disputed. While DNA tests are carried out to resolve its ancestry, there are also tests being sought to argue for the warrah being descended from Chinese dogs left behind by Hong Ba o’s sailors (Whipple 2003: 80-1; Menzies 2002: 135). This research may take some time. Hong Bao may have also discovered and sailed through Cape Virgines and the Magellan Strait, and if he is the ultimate source of the Piri Re ’is map, Hong Bao may have sailed down west coast of Tierra del Fuego (Menzies 2002: 136-7). Menzies also estimates that after the trip down Tierra del Fuego, a voyage of fourteen days depending on wind and current speeds would have led him to the South Shetland Islands, ‘an uninhabited wilderness of frost-shattered rock, glaciers and ice-fields, without so much as a blade of grass to be seen ’, which he would have charted (figure 15). But Hong Bao ’s quest was to calculate the South Pole ’s position by reckoning the magnetic South Pole ’s position and making compass corrections (Menzies 2002: 144-5). These voyages could help explain the mysterious origins of the Piri Re ’is , Vinland and other early European maps accurately depicting lands unknown to the cartographers of the time. The Piri Re ’is map notes that its charts were reduced to one scale (presumably from many maps). Menzies corrected the longitudinal errors whereupon the features of the Antarctic Region became all too recognisable (Menzies 2002: 144 & 147). Regarding the Vinland map, I do not believe that it is a fake as such. The Chinese (for the Norse did not make maps) could have made the original charts, which were then copied through the ages. The parchment and ink could be faked, a still highly contested point, but the original drawing from which it was

made is still genuine. It does not undermine the accuracy of the map. Also, another curious point is that when it was taken to the British Museum in 1965, the Vinland map was dated to between 1420 and 1440, only eighteen or nineteen years after the voyages of the Chinese fleet (Highfield 2002; Menzies 2002: 304-5). The dating is significant, because at the time archaeologists had not widely known about the Chinese fleet, so the dating could reflect a non-biased and verifiable trueness of Chinese voyages around the world seventy years before Columbus. Not only maps, but also physical evidence, like human remains, shipwrecks and artefacts, on the lands themselves could be still waiting to be discovered (Menzies 2002: 3-8). Proof could come in the form of nine supposed sunken Chinese junks from 1421 in the Caribbean. Menzies is waiting for the right opportunity to investigate. Some, like Gregory Baughen, the First Secretary at the New Zealand High Commission, are happy about such searches: ‘We ’re all ears, ’ he says. ‘Chinese artefacts have been found around the coast for some time ’ (Grice 2002). Menzies ’ vast appendices lists supporting evidence, which unlike New Age tomes, are quite convincing and well researched. And he is not the first to write about this, only the most recent and popular of non-Chinese authored books on this subject (Menzies 2002; 232). Though there are critics aplenty, the subject is worth further investigation. Menzies, as I do, sees no need to explain accurate maps of pre-1821 Antarctica to the work of Egyptians, aliens or long, lost races. Admiral Hong Bao in 1422, while charting the position of the South Pole, could have beaten the first Europeans by four centuries. At the moment, it is hard whether to talk about pre-Columbian (1492) or pre-Sinoan (1421) America for as Gavin Menzies ably reveals, the Chinese had discovered the Americas long before the Europeans, whose subsequent ascendancy in history usurped China ’s historical feat after their fall into inward-isolation. In any event and crucially so, or so the evidence points to so far, the Chinese did not settle in the Antarctic Region. And since most of the records have been destroyed by the new Emperor ’s administration, we may never know: 1) Did the Chinese fleet discover any prior signs of habitation in the Antarctic Region (dwellings, artefacts, people, etc)? And 2) did the Chinese themselves leave any signs of their discovery and exploration (artefacts, wrecks, astronomical stones, etc)? How can a voyage to Antarctica be proved? Well, there are a few clues, but we have to look at other parts of the world. Recently, near Warrnambool, eastern Australia some distinctive northern hemisphere white oak wood was found. It was dated to around 1522 and is thought to belong to the Portuguese Mahogany ship. This was 250 years before Cook discovered Australia in 1770 (Maynard 1999). But this could also be another century after the Chinese

discovered Australia. The wood was found in a far more hospitable place than the Antarctic Region, yet lay hidden for centuries. As will be seen later, petrified wood has been discovered in the Antarctic Region. Other possible Chinese shipwrecks from 1421-1423 could exist in the more benign coastal areas of the Caribbean, the Coasts of America and Australia. If anything, a Chinese wreck should be found in the region of the South Shetland Islands within one of the world ’s most stormiest seas. Also, recent reports have linked ancient Chinese visitors to the Americas. Chinese carvings at American Indian sites from 3000 years ago (Rennie 1999), classic Chinese stories like Shan Hai King almost 5000 years old, American crops like maize and peanuts found in China also 5000 years ago (Sieveking 1999) and Olmec figurines bearing Chinese-like portraits (Benson & de la Fuente 1996: 174 & 227) hint at a historical relationship with the Americas that goes back much further than thought. The Chinese may have been revisiting old colonies and explored areas. The voyages of the Chinese in 1421 may not be old Chinese wives tales. But it is worth noting how cool the reception is to this idea among western (American) academics. It threatens their pre-eminence in American Archaeology, their theories and history. But history and archaeology are ruled by paradigms that change and these academics may have to give up their cherished institutionalised ways and forge new understandings. History may have to be re-written, it always has been (usually by the victor), but here, both the reputations of the writers and the subjects (the Chinese explorers) will be enhanced and the world enriched. Who knows, the Chinese may already be searching for their historical treasures from their existing bases at Zhongstan in East Antarctica or Chang Cheng station on King George Island.

Thor Heyerdahl Someone who knew about sea travel and Pacific Ocean currents was the late Norwegian adventurer, Thor Heyerdahl. His experimental sea voyages in traditionally-built reed, papyrus or balsa wood boats proved that man had the capability to cross the oceans of the world, but had the capability to do so. His views on colonisation by way of the oceans are still often misunderstood and he was usually lumped in with the new age writers even though he scorned that discipline for their misuse and abuse of archaeology while often castigating academics for not reaching out beyond science more (Heyerdahl 2000: 44). The Foundation for Exploration on Cultural Origins (FERCO), which Heyerdahl was a part of, is to investigate ‘the climatic and cultural changes around 3000 BC' . For in that time Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Mayans and Hindu among others all either started upon the road to civilisation or their calendars

began at that time (Heyerdahl 2000: 275-9). It is an attempt at trying to piece together a history of man that will relate man to specific environmental periods. This echoes paleoecology, which discussed in Part 3, deals with man ’s temporal and spatial relationship to the environment. Picking up on Heyerdahl's comments, some writers, like new age authors, conveniently ignore prehistory because much is little understood, improperly interpreted or unpublished. No civilization started mysteriously and advanced. The prehistory is there. No other-worldly catalyst or Antediluvian civilization was or is needed to explain the rise of human civilization. And none is needed to account for possible Antarcticans, as shall be seen. Humans have a tendency to see patterns in dates and cultures, for example the Sumerians, Aztecs, Inca and the Polynesians, to name but a few cultures, all have similar flood myths. Their myths may indicate some form of past environmental change that offered them a chance for a sedentary lifestyle and advancement, but these myths should not allow other writers to hijack established archaeological data for their own exploitation. Heyerdahl's voyages, as detailed in his book In The Footsteps of Adam (2000) highlight the fact that the traditional materials he used kept him afloat for months, rather than the days or weeks that experts had predicted. His expeditions to Easter Island and the Galapogas in the 1950s found evidence that pre-Polynesian and pre-Inca societies, respectively, had at least landed on these islands. Heyerdahl believed that the reed ship was important ‘in the spreading of ancient culture' (Heyerdahl 2000: 300-2). If his theories are correct then the Pacific was a highway for culture. And this cannot rule out that other expeditions did not travel further south and toward Antarctica.

Antarctican Antiquity? If the Antarctic Region was inhabited, then how long ago did this occur? And what became of them? Could the Peninsula have supported a sizeable community? It has already been established earlier that fertile plains could not have existed on the Antarctic Peninsula, remembering also that ‘there are no extensive areas of more-or-less level, bare ground' (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 308), of course disregarding level glaciated ground and glacial history. At present soil formation is poor due to the underlying geology, which is not conducive to quick weathering, accompanied by low temperatures and high aridity (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 23, 92-3, 179). Food, desalinised water and animals would be in short supply and to keep alive. Antarctica, by 15 million years ago had cooled, due to the separation from the other southern continents and the sub-tropical waters. East Antarctica succumbed to a huge ice sheet, while the west was glaciated. Climate variations ensued, but by 2.5 million years ago the Antarctic beech

(Nothofagus gunnii), had disappeared and Antarctica, with a few recurring climate variations, became the Antarctica of today (Crossley 2000: 12-13). In 1949, the Byrd Antarctic Expedition took three sediment core samples from the Ross Sea and using an ionium-based study and isotopic studies found that Antarctica had had three slightly warm periods during the last million years coinciding with North America's glacial periods. According to the records, the last warm period ended only 6,000 years ago, coinciding with higher sea levels around Tierra del Fuego (Hapgood 1996: 96-8; McCulloch et al., 1997: 27). This evidence suggests that Antarctica possessed a warmer climate and may have been as conducive to some form of small settlement as Tierra del Fuego was at the same time. Alternatively, Antarctica could have been inhabited before the Americas. Early migration initially then occurred northward, evidenced by early Patagonian sites like Túnel and Monte Verde, and Brazilian sites in Sierra da Capivaria and Pedra Furada. After Antarctica was abandoned for Luzia's Brazil, the later south-bound Mongoloids then forced them back down toward their ‘ancestral lands' c.9000 BC. Argod does not explain how all these people (his Polynesians) from Antarctica could ‘suddenly ’ inhabit these disparate lands; develop such varied cultures in so short a time. The rate of adaptation and change of different cultures also presupposes an unexplained loss of technology and literacy for some cultures, before they were ‘re-educated ’ by the Europeans.

Asteroids, Comets and Collisions The nature of this section is of controversial content, but some of the ideas presented have started to come under scientific investigation and should be assessed by critics until such time as it is proved false. This involves the Shifting Crust Theory and its derivatives, which attempt to resolve issues of Antarctic settlement, discrepancies in geological eras and possible collisions with asteroids and comets, which had devastating effects around the world.

The Shifting Crust Theory Charles Hapgood promoted his theory in Earth ’s Shifting Crust (1958) and Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966), explaining that instead of just plate- tectonic movement, the whole of Earth ’s crust shifted, explaining ice ages mass extinctions and other global catastrophes. The Earth ’s crust, he further expounded, sat on a weaker, almost liquid layer of material, that reacted to pressure applied to it by the mass of ice, which is not centered upon the poles, and which itself is subjected to the centrifugal force of the Earth ’s rotation. Hapgood ’s calculations of the ice mass and the centrifugal force put

displacement of Antarctica by up to 2000 miles after the last ice age. Hence Antarctica was 2000 miles to the north, ice-free, and home to a civilization that mapped Antarctica, according to his evidence. The Earth’s crust then shifted to its present position around 9,600 BC, Antarctica taking several thousand years to become glaciated until at least 6000 years ago, the last warm period (Hapgood 1996: 188-190). Hapgood ’s ideas on Crustal Displacement were endorsed by none other than Albert Einstein in a letter to Hapgood (Hapgood 1996: 239). Hapgood however, dismisses the cosmic collision theory for such a mass ‘would probably destroy all terrestrial life ’ to cause such a shift in the crust (Hapgood 1996: 187). I agree, for just around that time of the last Earth crust shift, 9,600BC, peoples were either inhabiting or traveling through the Americas. Such a collision would have resulted in a tremendous loss of human and animal life, an extinction event that is not in evidence, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and impact damage whether in the sea or on land. The effects would have been felt for generations, yet Paleo-Indian populations were moving steadily into areas. Proponents of Hapgood ’s ideas include librarians Rand and Rose Flem-Ath, Flavio Barbiero and Robert Argod. Each has their own take on the Shifting Crust Theory and try to apply a scientific basis for this phenomenon though each for their own agenda in trying to identify Atlantis. Yet ‘Made in Atlantis ’ artefacts are hard to come by and I feel that the Atlantis angle is not necessary in using the theory to argue well enough for a more primitive pre-Columbian Antarctic society.

The Flem-Aths use Hapgood’s theory to account for world-wide mass extinctions of mega-fauna in the Americas and Siberia around 9,600BC (Flem-Ath & Flem-Ath 1995: 2), though recent reports, utilising computer simulations revealed that man in both the Americas and Australia hunted the animals to extinction, more so than any environmental change (Highfield 2001). But the Flem-Aths, who are critics of those archaeologists who do not study Antarctica, propose their own theory using an ‘antiopodal ’ approach with Greenland as their case study. Essentially, because Greenland ’s ice sheet and annual snowfall are inversely proportionate (geographical central big ice sheet/low annual snowfall on the coast), which is similar to East Antarctica ’s state, and because studies show that Greenland had a warmer climate during the last ice age, then parts of the Antarctic Peninsula (the proposed home of the Atlanteans) ‘before the last earth crust displacement of 9,600 ’, must have had warmer areas as well (Flem-Ath & Flem-Ath 1995: 75-76). But simply equating one climatic similarity with another in a different hemisphere does not always mean that the model is the same. The cause of the Flem-Ath ’s Earth crustal displacement is a change in Earth ’s orbital tilt (more than 1% of the present

23.4 º) via the sun ’s gravitational influence on an Earth with massive unbalanced ice caps (Flem-Ath & Flem-Ath 1995: 45-46). Could this really be the cause? Gravitational effects are known to affect Earth (the moon on tides for instance), but how great would the sun ’s effect be on an ice age period on Earth ’s crust? Even without the need for the Atlanteans, could the Peninsula have supported a sizable community? It has already been established that fertile plains could not have existed on the Antarctic Peninsula as ‘there are no extensive areas of more-or-less level, bare ground’ (Campbell & Claridge 1987: 308). Whether Antarctica shifted or not, at present soil formation (or evidence for any previous soils) is poor due to the underlying geology, which is not conducive to quick weathering in low temperatures and high aridity (Campbell & Claridge 1987: 23, 92-3, 179). The Flem-Aths consign Atlantis to a death beneath the ice; ice that would have taken millions of years to build up. Yet, even if true, such a vast and ruined civilisation would have been discovered by now. Radar satellite and other studies have thus far missed any such tell tale signs of civilisation, even though ice and water are far more penetrable by radar than either jungle or desert, where even the space shuttle had been able to find traces of cities, sites and civilisations in the jungle of Cambodia (Sheridan 1998), the forests of Guatemala and beneath the Sahara desert (Rapp & Hill 1998: 192). The ‘Atlantologists ’ still feel vindicated because satellite radar, from 1958 onwards, show the ‘islands of Antarctica ’ just like the Piri re ’is map (Flem- Ath & Flem-Ath 1995: xvi). The Flem-Aths have no need to invoke Atlantis when describing their theory. I believe that parts of Antarctica were inhabited in the past, just as Britain was inhabited intermittently for over 700,000 years before being permanently settled. Then as the climate changed, the inhabitants either died out or moved to South America, where the ocean current naturally takes them on an island hopping trip.

Flavio Barbiero, an Italian writer and engineer, is currently working on a theory regarding Seymour Island, off the north-east Peninsula coast, in which it was inhabited from about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago by peoples from Southeast Asia until 9,500 BC. At this time, according to Barbeiro, some sort of ‘cosmic impact' like a half-kilometer wide asteroid struck the Earth causing a strong rotational spin on its axis, the poles to shift, and the rising waters around Antarctica to force a migration of the ‘Antarcticans ' north to South America, the Caribbean, Africa, India and Egypt (Barbeiro 2006). This is similar to Argod, who throughout his book Out of Antarctica (2004) purports to identify myths about Antarctica from Polynesian, Chinese, Japanese, Icelandic, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Mesopotamian, and Mexican

myths and even Biblical sources to argue that the southern continent was the original home to these peoples and that a catastrophe forced a migration to new lands (Argod 2004). Barbeiro's artifactual evidence comes from the 1903 expedition of Carl Larsen, who after landing on Seymour Island found some numerous fossils, but also some mysterious cylinders and clay balls apparently ‘of artificial construction'. Larsen's notes are being studied for more clues, but the artefacts were destroyed by fire (Collins 2000: 2-3). Also on his previous expedition in 1893, Larsen had discovered some petrified wood (Rubin 2000: 28). But was this wood ancient and natural from a fossilised tree or part of some humanly manufactured artefact? Can it be tested to see if it is of Chinese origin or modern European wood? Barbeiro's work, published on the internet for the time being, is perhaps too ‘Hapgoodian' in nature, though he tries to throw some scientific light upon the subject. But there is no need for such an unproven doomsday scenario to be embraced to compensate for the lack of archaeological evidence or study. If there is no evidence, then so be it. Also of interest, Andrew Collins, a new age writer, cites a Chilean scientific team that took sediment cores off the South Shetland Islands and found apparent ‘flint tools of unquestionable human manufacture' (Collins 2000: 3). This event and the artefacts do not seem to have been widely publicised, scrutinised, provenanced or dated. Has anything like this been found before? Uncorroborated information like this undermines serious efforts to find incontrovertible evidence of man's presence on Antarctica. Despite Barbeiro's and Collins' theories, the artifactual evidence they present has to be examined closely. So far, my attempts to follow up on these ‘finds ’ through Chilean archaeological sources and Andrew Collins have proved unfruitful. Returning to Barbeiro's theory (as presented through Larsen's data), he must be proposing a two-phased exodus through the Pacific, the first missing out the Pacific Islands for there is no evidence to even suggest an early occupancy 40,000-50,000 years ago in Polynesia, and then on to Australia and Antarctica. The second phase would be the migrating Polynesians and Pacific dwellers of today. The first phase of migration ties in with the fact that recent evidence from Kow Swamp, Lake Mungo and controversial Malakunanja rock shelter, northern Arnham Land (yielding dates of up to 60,000 BP) suggests dates of at least 40,000 to 80,000 years ago for the first colonisation of Australia (Gowlett 1994: 139; Gamble 1993: 215). If Barbeiro is correct then an Afro-Australian population may have colonised Antarctica. But was this group part of the first or second wave to Antarctica via Australia? Arguments over dating of migration times, sites and anomalous physical remains, as seen in Part 3, make for interesting and

possible combinations of travellers to both Australia and Antarctica. In the future, genetic markers from Barbeiro's South East Asian or Neves ’ non-Mongoloid/Afro-Australian populations must show up in future discovered ‘Antarcticans' for their theories to be vindicated. And if there was such a culture that migrated away from Antarctica and/or traded with others, then where are the tell-tale artefacts, the ‘souvenirs', the ‘lousy t-shirt' ?

Argo d’s theory has been discussed before in regards to the Polynesians and his theory that they originated from Antarctica. Argod also investigated discrepancies in dating methods for climatic eras, anomalies in paleomagnetism, plate tectonics and the Quaternary glaciations. These led Argod to place the ancient geographic north pole at various locations (e.g. 71ºN/10ºE) as with Antarctica (also based on ancient maps at 75ºS/45ºE in the Indian Ocean), between 2000 and 700BC (Argod 2004: 173, 181, 184). These shifts were ‘accompanied by intense volcanic activity ’ and separated by long periods of tranquility ’. These events brought better or worse climates, explaining ice ages and interglacials (Argod 2004: 187). Like Hapgood and the Flem-Aths, Argod also discounts a cosmic event for crust displacement, for either not being big enough in magnitude to cause a shift or for being too destructive (Argod 2004: 190). Instead Argod envisions an internal process initiated by the tectonic plates being under pressure and the angular momentum of rotation between the poles and the equator doing the rest (Argod 2004: 190- 192). But bizarrely, Argod ’s process involves a recent (and unspecified historical) event that caused a sudden slippage of the South American plate in the Andean Cordillera region, causing tectonic, volcanic and oceanic disasters as South America pivoted around the Panama region (Argod 2004: 197). But surely this event could be verified from geological evidence, especially in so late a geologic time? Trying to explain Antarctic inhabitation through an Earth crustal shifting process does not seem tenable at the moment, but it could explain another controversial theme. Such a sudden and catastrophic shift in any geologic sense is almost related to S.J. Goul d’s ‘Punctuated Equilibrium ’, where in biology there is a long period of stability followed by a rapid change in evolution again followed by a long period of stability (Gould 2002: 39). These biological changes, mass extinctions and other upheavals, have been accompanied by large scale environmental catastrophes (the Permian extinction, the KT extinction, to name but a couple). Not that the Earth Shifting Crust and Punctuated Equilibrium are related, but such a combined theory could explain both rapid geologic and biological changes. However, no earth-shuddering event had been recorded for the periods that Hapgood, the Flem-Aths, Barbeiro and Argod present. Until now.

Chevrons and Mega-tsunamis Recently, evidence for an asteroid or comet impact, 4,800 years ago, in the Indian Ocean was found in Madagascar. Huge ‘chevrons ’, wedge-shaped sediment deposits, usually containing deep ocean microfossils fused with asteroid metals and pointing toward the ocean were found by the Holocene Impact Working Group, a collection of researchers, scientists and specialists in geology, geophysics, geomorphology, tsunamis, tree rings, soil science, archaeology and mythology from America, France, Australia, Russia, and Ireland. The cause of these chevrons was a mega-tsunami 183m (600ft) tall (13 times bigger than the Indonesian tsunami two years ago) (Blakeslee 2006). The Fenambosy Chevron, one of four, near the tip of Madagascar is 600 feet high and three miles from the ocean. When the Working Group looked for the cause of the chevron, they found the Burckle crater, 18 miles in diameter, 12,500 feet below the Indian Ocean surface and 900 miles south-east of Madagascar. It is estimated to be 4,500 to 5,000 years old (Blakeslee 2006). Though with no concrete evidence for this, to me, this is suspiciously close to the dates when the first major civilizations of the world began their rise circa 3000BC. Climate change has often been cited for this conducive atmosphere for civilisation, but the cause of the climate change has not been known. Were asteroids and comets providing a catalyst for change? Do world wide flood myths have a common basis in fact describing mega-tsunamis? How much force would be needed to create these chevrons and what are their capabilities? Is Barbeiro correct in the rotational effects from impacts? Can evidence for chevrons be found in Patagonia and Antarctica? Chevrons have already been found as far a field as Australia, Africa, Europe – including Scotland and the North Sea, North Korea, Vietnam, the Caribbean, and in the Hudson River, New York. So, they are not unknown events. Dallas Abbott, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, New York has been discovering oceanic craters from the chevrons that point ocean-ward, including the Burckle crater. With Ted Bryant, a geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia, who found two north-pointing chevrons four miles inland in Carpentaria, north central Australia, Abbott was able to later find two 1,200 year old craters, which matched the age of the chevrons (Blakeslee 2006). Without trying to postulate a catch-all cause for climate change, extinctions, migrations and myths, asteroids and comets collisions could be one of the most important factors in the formation of human life and civilization. David Morrison from NASA Ames Research Centre, an expert on asteroids and comets supports the Holocene Impact Working Group ’s research and expects more from deep ocean impact and crater studies. Estimates from the Working Group

see evidence of cosmic collisions, on the order of 10-megatons, at a rate of one every 1,000 years (Blakeslee 2006). This rate could be too high, but even so, a lower rate could conceivably cover the Hapgood, Argod and Barbeiro range of dates for their respective theories on Antarctic disaster and migration. But how could we know? Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico has dated the Burckle carter comet to the morning of May 10 th , 2807BC. He had analysed 175 flood myths from around the world and related them to natural events, like eclipses and volcanoes. Fourteen myths specifically mentioned a full solar eclipse (one occurred in May 2807BC), half told of ‘torrential downpours ’, a third experienced tsunamis and other ‘hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm’, Masse seeing these phenomena as related to mega-tsunamis (Blakeslee 2006). So from two disparate corners comes a common consensus for asteroid and comet collisions, causing untold damage in the past, igniting myths and possibly forcing a rewrite of history. While I remain unconvinced of a civilization on Antarctica and the Shifting Crust theory, the asteroid/comet theory has currency. All we need is confirmation that such an event happened on Antarctic a’s doorstep and accordingly affected the region in a catastrophe that could have spelled disaster for any culture living in that region. Attempts to contact Dallas Abbott and David Morrison are ongoing. Devastating events in our history since the ice-age may be hidden from view by the oceans. If such features are found in Antarctica, what could this tell us about the possible history of man in Antarctica?

Summary The objective of this section was to delve into issues of the how ’s and why ’s of migration to Antarctica and to iterate the possible antiquity of such voyages. Was Antarctica an origin, destination or transition point for peoples? Antarctica or its islands could have been found much earlier than expected and by peoples not suspected of being able to carry out long ocean voyages. The most likely contenders are the Afro-Australians and the Fuegians. Explorations were probably more purposive than chance and drift voyages precipitated by environmental changes, resource acquisition, population pressures and maybe warfare, and reward and glory ventures. These voyages would not have been ‘blind ’ expeditions, but based upon ‘cognitive maps ’ with explorers reading the environmental signs that showed that more land existed beyond their horizon. Antarctica's past climate may have been conducive to colonisation at times, the antiquity of which is still in doubt. Depending upon the length of time on

an isolated island(s), a culture could have developed and disappeared before being discovered by the Europeans. Whether, environmental change or other factors caused the settlers to migrate or die are also hotly disputed. Hapgood ’s Earth crust displacement theory cannot be used as a catch-all theory. Its causes are weak and geologically unsubstantiated. ‘We find what we look for ’ says Hapgood. But he is referring to those unbelievers who ‘overlook, neglect and pass by facts unless we have a motive to notice them ’ in regards to Atlantis (Hapgood 1996: 197). But of course, where one sees Antarctica, another sees a lost civilization. In the end, I think that as much as Borrero thinks that the first Fuegian colonists became extinct, the first Antarcticans who came across the Southern Ocean, with a less than sustainable breeding population, supplies, purpose and no ‘return ticket ’ became extinct, possibly within a few generations. They thus left none or very little visible archaeological horizon. But tracing that horizon is a prime task, now and for the future. If Antarctica was colonised, then what would be the factors for their survival?

Raymond Burke

PART 3: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Travelling to Antarctica is one thing, but surviving the environment is another. Whether populations came from South America or Australasia, tell-tale signs could survive from those parent populations down through the colonisers, thus providing evidence for their origins. In his introduction to the Human Occupation of the Arctic , Peter Rowley-Conwy from the University of Durham states that ‘occupying the Arctic is, on the face of it, an absurd thing for a tropical ape to attempt' explaining man's lack of expertise and protection from the extreme environment (Rowley-Conwy 1999: 349). Though the Thule and their successive descendants, the Inuit have survived in the Arctic, why could not the same sentiments have been applied to possible Antarctic peoples, even though their attempts at survival were not so successful? As the occupation of the Arctic was probably a more extreme environment to survive than the sub-Antarctic, why are there no settlements in the Antarctic? Sub-Antarctic forays may have been sporadic or seasonal for hunting and fishing. Campsites, hunting weapons, food processing technology and their debris may still be out there, but hard to find owing to their low visibility on the archaeological horizon. How then can we find or predict where to find evidence of the Antarcticans?

Archaeological theory and Antarctica There are several competing and complimentary theories within archaeology that could be used to study Antarctican colonisation. Paleogeoecology or culture ecology and phenomenology are methods that could be used to assess potential Antarctican lifestyles. Paleogeoecology studies the interactions between prehistoric life and the environmental landscape (Rapp and Hill 1998: 86). Culture ecology is similar to paleogeoecology and relates to the society, environment and technology where 'society creates and perpetuates a sustaining technology that in turn exacts resources from the environment for human use' (Dillehay 2000: 78). In essence, each factor sustains the other. In studying a past Antarctic culture, part of this equation clearly did not work. Antarcticans would have had a poor culture ecology, whether a sedentary, mobile, maritime or a seasonal lifestyle. Phenomenology explores how individuals move through and experience the landscape. For its main proponents like Tilley, Hodder, Shanks and Gosden, phenomenology links ‘individual agency with thick description of particular events' (Hodder 1999: 12-13). We may not have the thick description of events,

but in looking at Antarctica we can use phenomenology to predict potential sites through examining the (past) landscape and how man may have reacted to, experienced and survived Antarctica through time. These techniques, Paleogeoecology, phenomenology and culture ecology, could dictate the survival rate of any Antarctican lifestyle. Rowley-Conwy also raises an important fact that in studying Arctic archaeology, ‘progressive tendencies' that often pervade western archaeology are absent and that instead the ‘flexibility' of human complexity is the focus (Rowley-Conwy 1999: 352-3). Likewise, phenomenology, Hodders asserts can be used ‘to be active and relevant and to transform contemporary inequalities' (Hodder 1999: 14), which to me, in the context of Antarctica, means that western biases and euro-centric views should be negated in reference to past, possible Antarctic cultures that could have come and gone unnoticed with little or no visibility due to its non-progressive society. Danish professor of statistics, Bjorn Lomborg likewise addresses the problems of the ‘file drawer' and ‘data massage' . Though Lomborg is relating his points to the media world, this is highly relevant for scientists who reject data without ‘good connections' leaving them in their file drawers until other data with potential connections makes the initial data relevant (Lomborg 2001: 36). So in regards to Antarctica anomalous artefacts like the Chilean-found flint tools off the South Shetlands or the clay balls found by Larsen on Seymour Island are left in the file drawer until more evidence arrives making them relevant or which undermines that evidence. Fair enough. Meanwhile, unlike the file drawer, perhaps too much data is amounted where connections are bound to be perceived, either way, and thus the data is ‘massaged' to present a particular view point (usually in favour of the author's view), with other data ignored (Lomborg 2001: 36). There are so many new age writers and theories on Antarctica precisely because they have so much perceived information that the data could be shown to support their view, even though other data, including file drawer data can disprove them. Some scientists and archaeologists will add me to that group. The point is to investigate these data and not to keep data in the file drawer or to massage it even if i t’s against your own arguments. Causality and chaos theories are also being applied to archaeology to explain factors such as cultural diversity, climate, disease and population patterns (Hodder 1999: 146, 183; Gleick 1997: 69-77). Chaos theory fits perfectly into archaeology. Archaeology often sifts through chaotic sequences and data caused by chaotic systems (e.g. environment, humans, etc). Robert May's work, summarised in James Gleick's 1997 book Chaos , looked at population and the degrees to which fertility and the birth-death ratio played in the part of population. That link assessed a population's survivability from

whether it was stable, chaotic or on the verge of extinction. In applying this to the first American migrants and possible Antarcticans, the number and diversity of peoples would have to be determined in order to see if a continuing society would outstrip its supply of resources (e.g. food, land, resources, etc). If population spiralled out of control, there could be social disorder and a possible collapse. Carneiro's social and environmental circumscription theory, for want of a better term, is part of chaos theory. Disruptions or depletion of the (chaos) factors within a society's environment can, according to Carneiro's theory cause conflict. In applying the various theories to Antarctica, possibly through experiments and computer models, one can hopefully and clearly analyse data and not ignore data perceived to be anomalous or non-contextual. But also one has to recognise that too much data can lead to spurious proclamations of imagined advanced Antarctic cultures. Likewise, ancient man's possible movements through and his experience of the changing landscape have to be studied. Also, although I will use them, analogies to north polar environments cannot always be used for Antarctica, due to biases, undue influences and faulty interpretations. Transference of a north polar culture to the South Pole will not be adequate for the Antarcticans would have had a distinct and unique culture. But can a picture be painted of ancient Antarcticans, where they came from and how they lived? What was their infrastructure like? Did they raise families there or was the Antarctic a hunting ground for seasoned men only? Where did they procure their resources like food, wood, and other materials for survival? And what technology was needed to survive? Phenomenology ‘allows large scale trends to be understood at the human scale' (H odder 1999: 137) and analysing Antarctica as an environment where humans interacted via the ocean, wind, landscape, fauna and other humans may allow us to discern ancient sites. Because the timescale of an Antarctic colonisation period was long (long enough for an early culture to come and disappear even before recognised civilised cultures grew) archaeologists do not devote time and energy into exploring such a low visible potential. Remember the file drawer? Also, because of the past Antarctic environment, the limits of social habits and behaviour would probably be different. As remarked above, at around 40,000 to 60,000 years ago (the earliest Antarcticans could have arrived) we may be searching for a culture so isolated and different from other early cultures, that their visibility may be obscured from archaeologists. After this period, visibility may increase due to other interactions (e.g. trade, intermarriage, conflict etc.) perhaps with Tierra del Fuego.

Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of Patagonia consists of one small part of South America, yet it has many similarities to the Antarctic Peninsula and its islands, which could favour possible migration by Feugian Indians. We shall examine the landscape and history of the cultural entities, which later claimed these harsh lands as their own thousands of years ago. In researching the possible background of possible Antarcticans and their landscape, we have to ask some questions, such as:

1) What was Patagonia like to inhabit thousands of years ago? 2) What did it take to survive Patagonia? a) What was their technology like? b) Did they deplete resources or hunt animals to extinction? c) Did they build ocean-going sea craft? 3) What reason(s) was there to adapt or migrate? 4) If they did migrate, did they venture south to Antarctica?

These same questions can be asked of Australia. But since Aborigines, landscapes and experiences were different, then some adaptation along the way to Antarctica, possibly influenced via Patagonia, may have taken place creating a new culture. Here below, factors in survival are discussed and assessed in the roles that they played in settling the Antarctic Region.

Technology and skills of survival What are the factors involved in extreme weather travel and survival? Can the Antarctic eco-system support settlers, with the fauna and the flora of the land, sea and air creating a sustainable food chain for humans? Rowley-Conwy states, in regards to north polar cultures, that 'the technologies used by humans for clothing, shelter, transport, food procurement, and storage are all areas of unique and startling ingenuity' (Rowley-Conwy 1999: 351). Using these and other factors, such as phenomenology and culture ecology, among others, in support for the case of settlement in the Antarctic Region, how would an Antarctican society have utilised these technologies to survive? The brevity of some of the sections underscores the lack of knowledge or evidence on the subjects, on-going work or unpublished work.

Maritime transport What would we need to know about a peoples' ability to travel to and survive the Antarctic Region? Knowledge of ocean currents, wind patterns and lengths of voyages to various islands would have to be known. Knowledge of

animals on land, sea and air would have to be known and the type of technology and techniques to capture them, as discussed in Part 2. Treatment for exposure, hypothermia and coping with long periods of darkness and isolation would also be an imperative. Boat designs with a structure sturdy enough to withstand the battering oceanic winds and waves and possibly thickening ice would have to be built. Furs, hides, structures and other resources for warmth and energy would be needed. Further challenges would have to be addressed if family and child-bearing/rearing were also practiced in the Antarctic Region. Using a north polar example, the Inuit had umiaks , boats with wooden ribs of driftwood or bones, sealskin and walrus hides lashed with ropes and water- proofed seams made by a needle drawn halfway through the thick hides, leaving no external holes. It rode high on the water, could carry many people, their baggage and heavy loads, and could be used as a shelter when turned upside down. They were simple to build and repair. Oil lamps made from soapstone and fuelled by grease and blubber from seals were also used. Used for thousands of years, the Inuit ancestors, the Thule, could hunt whales in these ocean-going boats, though they were not as stable in rough seas. The perishable materials used to build the umiaks, have combined to leave no traces of ancient umiaks or the building technology (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 48-51; Fagan 2004: 50). Fagan and Webster conjecture that the first Americans traveled down the southern edge of the Siberian coast and into the Pacific North West and down the American coast (Fagan 2004: 50; Webster 2005: 3) The Antarcticans, whether from Australia or South America, would not have all the necessary means and resources for a large boat-building industry. Constant wear, tear and repairs, importation of scarce wood resources or use of their boats for other structures and crafts, may have led to the adoption of a different industry other than long term ocean fishing. What was the state of boat-building techniques either in Patagonia c.6,000 BP or Australia post 40,000 years ago? The capabilities of both boats and their builders will have to be studied in earnest in order to assess the aforementioned theories. We are concerned with the period post upper-Pleistocene some 40,000 to 60,000 years ago and with the Holocene (specifically 6,000 BP ), which began around 12,000 years ago. Ancient wind patterns were different then and can be inferred from studying oxygen isotopes from that time. When 16 O and 18 O from these time periods were studied, their ratios when compared to past precipitation revealed that in glacial periods, temperature differences between the equatorial and polar regions was 20-25 percent, indicating more violent winds. ‘Wind vigour' was 50 percent stronger during glacial periods, with temperatures 12-13ºC lower than interglacial temperatures (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 212-3). This could have hampered boating efforts, especially in the Southern Ocean. Thus Antarctica was probably discovered during an interglacial

period and maybe only inhabited during that interglacial before being abandoned for whatever reason. The last glacial-like period, known as the Younger Dryas period (12,900 to 11,600 BP) ended with a rapid rise of temperature, though the mechanism for this change is uncertain, though a reason could involve a massive Antarctica melting phase (Fagan 2004: 12; Mithen 2003: 239). This cooling event was less severe in the Americas than in Eurasia. The cause of the Little Ice Age ( AD 1450 to 1890) is also unknown. As discussed in Part 2 it may have affected Polynesian exploration, but could it also have affected any Antarctican society inhabiting that region at the time? After 11,600 BP to the mid 15 th century AD , an Antarctican society could have survived during the relative warmth. Also, during the last glacial maximum with sea levels down by 100 to 150 meters, the east American coastlines would have been wider by more than a hundred kilometres in some places, depending on the continental shelf, while the Pacific shoreline would have only been wider by fifty kilometres or less (Dillehay 2000: 65). That is a lot of area to cover if one wanted to look for potential early coastal sites, for surely coastal migration was a stronger prospect than inland travel at that time.

Maritime transport in Tierra del Fuego Entry into the Americas may have been achieved by skin-covered boats travelling down the Pacific coast by 15,000 BP , the people leading ‘littoral lifestyles' until eventually migrating to Tierra del Fuego by at least 11,000 BP (Dillehay 2000: 67, 282-3). Ruth Gruhn and Knut Fladmark think that this mode of travel would have avoided the obstacles (e.g. glaciers, deserts and mountains, etc.) that terrestrial migrants would have encountered and also would have led to more isolated cultures (Dillehay 2000: 63, 67). As global sea levels settled around 6,000 to 5,000 BP , the coast would have allowed better access for travel and richer resources (Dillehay 2000: 56, 224). Dillehay disagrees with some aspects of the coastal hypothesis citing the non-correlation of early European migration routes; the tendency of people to settle rather than to become more nomadic; and the ‘lure' of the more hospitable continental interior, but he does acknowledge that the coastal migration could explain the unaccounted-for early sites in North America and earlier dated sites in South America (Dillehay 2000: 69-71). Around 6,000 BP , a marine lifestyle was established as evidenced by marine shells at sites such as Las Buitreras (around 100 kilometres inland) and not far from Rio Gallegos, a possible waterway. This could imply a seasonal adaptation, perhaps, or a trading site. This change of lifestyle coincided with a warmer and drier climate with fauna scarce from over-hunting practices.

But coastal sites are hard to find, as sea levels have risen by 4 to 7 metres since then, and archaeological investigations are few and human and natural damage to the area has occurred. Also maritime artefact constructions and designs would be different from their inland forms (Mena 1997: 51), thus making identification more difficult. This specific time of 6,000 BP represents the first time that peoples could have explored further south from Tierra del Fuego. Canoes were important to the Tierra del Fuego culture of the Yamana and Kawesqar, not only for transport, but also as a semi-habitable area for eating and carrying constantly lit fires aboard within sand pits. For inaccessible, rough or unpredictable areas, log-made portages offered clearer routes across the islands (Borrero 1997: 67; Hitt 2004: 37). The tree mostly used for the construction of canoes, bark buckets and huts was the Southern Beech (Nothofagus betuloides ). Underlying that tree's importance, the Yamana territory largely followed Southern Beech forested areas, which were confined to a territory spreading from the Beagle Channel to the Strait of Magellan (Borrero 1997: 66-67). In order to travel to the Antarctic Region, one would have to navigate the ferocious Southern Ocean. Traditionally, Yamana men at the oars would be seen heaving against the waves, but with the Yamana, it was the women who paddled, moored and swam, even with babies strapped to their backs. The women also navigated and helped to sew the canoe-bark together. All in all, it involved ‘serious training and great stamina' (Chapman 1997: 82) as shown in figure 16. The men harpooned seals, whales and dolphins, but could not or did not swim or paddle, though they were the main builders of the canoe (Chapman 1997: 82-83). This raises more questions as to the peculiar role of Yamana women. Did women always paddle? If not, then how long has this tradition existed? Was this true only of Yamana women or did other tribes have this custom? Were there not enough men to paddle and fish? Is this a remnant of purposive exploration where men and women travelled and shared responsibilities equally to increase survival? Was it to keep the family together in case they got lost and had to start a new family elsewhere? The answers to these questions could reveal a great deal about early exploration. I suspect that this is a long- held tradition ‘recording' a detail of past exploration. This would have allowed more men to fish, and possible to create a firmer bond between men and women to share survival experiences, much like the wagon trains of the American West and the Boers of South Africa. Families endured stress, strain and jubilation together, which helped establish communicative and cohesive societies. Be that as it may, women paddle. As children Cristina and Ursula Calderon, who had lost four family members at sea, spent long periods in canoes, often

in storms. Cristina recalled:

When you're in a small boat you're so close to the water. You see the waves coming, soaking you while you are trying to get rid of the water that's already got into the boat. But when you are caught in a storm around the [Cape] Horn it's terrifying (McLeod 2002: 17).

But how far off shore did they venture? Had anyone been blown off-course toward the Antarctic Region? If so then how did they return, if ever? How sea- worthy would a canoe be in open-sea conditions, especially if bailing water with a bark bucket? Could fire be sustained in such conditions? Could the canoe be covered, even partially to maintain heat? And how big were the canoes, could they be built bigger for longer voyages? Did they or their ancestors use sails? These are questions to be answered even as the Fuegian way of life disappears due to modernity and mortality. The state of affairs in Australia fare no better.

Maritime transport in Australia The Tiwi still retain a sea-faring culture among the Aborigines. Mike Rowland, an Australian archaeologist, in an experiment built a bark canoe with Aborigines and paddled 60 kilometres to the Keppel Islands to show that mainlanders were capable of seasonal visits or colonisations of the islands (Gamble 1993: 220). Of course making the journey now does not prove that it was done in the past. But as asked before, when regarding purposive exploration, can these approaches to Pacific exploration be applied to the Southern Ocean? Resources may have been finite in Tierra del Fuego, but as mentioned, there were at least five indigenous tribes at the point of first European contact, each with their own particular niche, the Yamana the only real maritime culture. So resources might not have played a prominent part in migration. Curiosity and/or heroic tradition (reward for finding new land, resources, trade, etc.) could be more responsible for migration. But could a canoe paddled by women travel around ten times further (500km, the distance from Tierra del Fuego to the nearest Antarctic islands) than the first inhabitants from South East Asia to Sahul (65km to the New Guinea/Australia/Tasmania continent) or than Rowland's experimental voyage to the Keppel Islands, at 60km? How different were the ancient peoples of the first Americans and the first Australians, specifically, in their boat-building technology and use? How similar were they? Did the Aborigines have ocean-going boats, a skill and technology that was eventually lost? How far offshore did they venture? What

were ocean conditions like around Australia in the past? Indeed, when would they have travelled (in period and season)? Did anyone get blown off-course toward the Americas? If so, then how did they return, if ever? How structurally sound were their canoes for such long sea voyages? Did they or their ancestors use sails? Research into this area may be ongoing. Can we hope to compare artefacts like boats to Australia and Patagonian groups to infer a distant connection? Would it uncover an ancient sea-going tradition that may have extended deep into the Southern Ocean? But if a lot of the wooden artefactual component is missing, then where will we find the physical remains of boats? It may be difficult due to lack of preservation of boat material; or it may be low priority due to the drive of seeking out the oldest inland sites and human remains/artefacts. Coastal sites may have disappeared, due to the total submergence of low-lying Sahul by around 6000 BP (Gamble 1993: 218), but the importance of ancient sites (of the origins migrants) and of possible disembarkation points and the peoples and their technology that achieved this feat is also worthy of high mention. It might be ironic that Antarctican life was ended or isolated, or that travel to or from Antarctica was affected around 11,000 to 10,000BC. Weaver et al (2003) proposed that a meltwater pulse from Antarctica triggered the Eurasian cooler/ drier Younger Dryas period 11,500 to 10,600BC (Fagan 2004: 12). Such a time period may preclude any established Tierra del Fuego tribe sailing to Antarctica, thus another opportunistic peoples may have come straight from Australia or down the American coast.

Shelter and clothing What would a community need in order to shelter from the cold, harsh elements of the Antarctic Region? For safety, resource sharing and camaraderie, a cluster of structures, organised or not, may have been built. Or maybe a small, single communal building may have been established. The structures could have been built as free-standing buildings from the surrounding rock, or aided by rock shelters or other such geologic features. For simplicity, several hearths may have been used to spread warmth, day and night, summer and winter perhaps fuelled not by wood, due to the sparseness of trees, but other sources of fuel. Evidence of charcoal deposits have not been found so far, unless eroded away, so any fires and hearths may have been fuelled by whale or seal oil and blubber. Maybe even penguin oil or skin was used, like as with 19 th century penguin hunters (Hince 2000: 258-9). Of ground buildings, semi-subterranean or underground buildings, cemeteries/individual burials, storage facilities, boats and harbours, sea walls and other storm defenses, boundary walls, what would we find? Would any

of these structures or foundations be visible now? How would we know if structures were there, but are now ravaged by time and the elements? One innovative method used by archaeologist Sue Hamilton at University College London, is the wrapping of stones in bright-coloured, plastic wrap to mark out potential and known foundations, cornerstones or parts of structures. Not only does this help with visualisation of the structure, but also with the structure's relationship within the environment, a phenomenological outlook. But could these methods be used in the Antarctic? In searching for parallels to possible Antarctic dwellings we head back to the northern hemisphere and the Aleut Islands, between Siberia and Alaska which are akin to the Sub-Antarctic Islands. Navigation is hazardous, temperatures range from 50ºF in the summer to 20ºF in winter (about -10ºC to +10ºC), storms are frequent, and active volcanoes make for an unstable landscape, which is mountainous and almost bare of soil. Yet the Aleut survive. Their legends tell of being forced from their homeland due to war (parallels with the Fuegians?). Their settlement levels can be up to 25 feet below village mounds and though they ‘could not plant it or reshape it or smother it with cities or make any lasting changes to it' they still survived (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 340-1). The Japan Current, which keeps the climate mild, also brings fish, whales, seals and seal lions; edible seaweed, berries and herbs grow from patches of soil and guano. The Aleutians, while ‘sea-borne hunters' had tools of stone and bone, sophisticated surgical practices and medicinal knowledge. Mummified burials in caves or pits were also an Aleut practice. Much has now probably changed in the Aleuts since the Russian conquest in the mid-eighteenth century (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 341). Can any of these or other distinguishing traits be found in or compared to the Antarctic environs? While not wanting to contrast Antarcticans to Aleutians, the latter culture could provide valuable information on possible site locations and survival skills. The Antarctic Peninsula and islands are quite mountainous, but have surveys reported any caves or protected areas suitable for habitation? Caves on ancient coastlines would now be submerged due to glacial retreat and sea level rises, so may be lost to posterity, though higher inland sites might still survive. Argod tries to argue that the Polynesian marae , the truncated step pyramid, equates to the Mexican teocalli , Chinese temples and even to Mesopotamian Ziggurats (Argod 2004: 309). But these building types were not contemporaneous, being at least 2000 years apart in construction. If any, but the latter of these cultures, had inhabited the Antarctic, such a platform structure from that time period and with the materials available, would probably end up with the same form of building, since there are only so many

ways to build a platform for whatever purpose. And if such a structure were found, it would probably have been a foundation for another now eroded building (e.g. residence, stores, etc) to keep it from the frozen ground, rather than for any rituals. Clothing-wise, warm and waterproof clothing and footwear would be needed. The Inuit kamik , Lap finnesko and komarger and Siberian mukluk are types of footwear (Hince 2000: 129) maybe akin to what Antarctic settlers could have worn. Ancient cold weather clothing and shelter coverings could also include sealskins, otter pelts and guanaco hides (Humble 2001; Crossley 2000: 61; Chapman 1997: 82-3). All Antarctican clothing could have been furs and skins. Fueguian-type oil dressings could have helped to ward off the cold. Hopefully, due to the colder conditions in the Antarctic Region, clothing would be preserved for future discovery.

Shelter and clothing in Tierra del Fuego Looking at the archaeological evidence, the Yamana and their fellow Fuegians, the Haush built similar huts from wood and foliage, which some ethnographers see as a cultural affinity between the two groups with the Yamana relying more on sea mammals as a resources (Borrero 1997: 79). The Yamana also rebuilt re-usable dome-shaped huts along coastal strips (Borrero 1997: 67, 73). With there being no trees in the Antarctic Region, could the Antarcticans have adapted their technology and built shelters from rocks, if adequate ready-made shelter (caves and rock shelters) could not be found? Did any of the Fuegians make rock structures in Patagonia that have still to be found, or are unaccounted for in the archaeological record? Figure 17 shows sites of habitation in northern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Caves and rock shelters provide and preserve the best data, but with some sites, the little data presented provides weak links for human activity and unreliable dates. Non-taphonomic processes need to be proven against natural processes so that the sites can be verified as being inhabited by humans (Borrero and McEwan 1997: 35). Clothing would probably have consisted of guanaco hides and other skins and furs. Also, did the early Fuegians weave other clothing and accessories from various plants or feathers besides hides and furs? Their ways and methods of clothing could reveal ancient dress codes and with Tierra del Fuego more similar in temperature to the Antarctic Region, clothing design, type and materials could have been similar to any Antarctic citizen. Preservation of that ancient material would be important.

Shelter and clothing in Australia Shelter in Australia included gunyas (bark huts) set in groups, caves, rock

shelters or even open air. Group sizes were from a dozen up to a few hundred. Aboriginal dress is simple in design and looks, but may convey more culturally than at first glance. Clothing, like cloaks, was made from possum, wallaby or kangaroo, otherwise, mean and women were naked with a belt of hair, fur or plants to carry items. Clothing was a European import. Is this a tradition that stretches back into time or a modern convenience due to late warmer climate change and cultural identity? In some places, Australia is very hot and dry, so simple, light clothing would have been needed, probably hides and furs more for modesty. Preservation of such materials would have been more assured in the dry, dusty interior. But other more inclement areas, like forests and coastlines, once inhabited by early Aborigines may have contributed to the perishing of organic material, especially woods, animal hides, furs and plants. If early Aborigines had travelled to Patagonia or Antarctica, their technology would have changed, as discussed below, as to probably be unrecognisable from the original. How can we then tell the Aborigine- Antarcticans from the Fuegian-Antarcticans? Reconstructing the evolution of Aborigine building and materials would be a start.

Hunting Hunting in the Americas was an important aspect of Paleo-Indian lives. However, as seen with the Megafaunal Overkill Hypothesis, which can also be applied in Australia, the evidence, to me, is still not enough to convict man solely of this mass extinction. Certainly, if migrants reached the Antarctic Region, there were no mass extinctions there for such a small area. But Martin's theory is still the dominant model. One such reason for the lack of archaeological evidence in the Antarctic Region for human settlement could result from the lifestyle of the inhabitants who did not succumb to the oft-stated ‘rise-of-civilisation' mode. Hunter- gatherers/fishers would probably have been the main societal group in the Antarctic Region with developments in agriculture and pastoralism unrealised. This is important, for the lack of agriculture and pastoralism in the Antarctic would have a great effect on the sustainability of any Antarctic settlement. What evidence of weapons and hunting techniques would we find in the Antarctic Region? Would we find clubs, bows and arrows, flint or other stone or preserved wooden projectiles, bolas, spear-throwers? Would we find cut marks on buried bones, penguin, seal, bird, or imported animal burials? Can we in looking at the hunting practices of the Fuegians and Aborigines discern, if, when, and who came to Antarctica?

Hunting in Tierra del Fuego When the first colonisers arrived in southern Patagonia (see figure 17), they were still living a hunter-gatherer existence in a recent post-glacial environment. But then things changed. Megafauna disappeared, the map of Tierra del Fuego changed due to post-glacial conditions and new Patagonian lifestyles emerged. What happened to change the hunter-gatherer lives? Around 13,500 BP to 10,000 BP , sloths ( Mylodon darwinii ) are known to have inhabited Patagonia along with other now-extinct animals such as a neotropical horse ( Onohippidium saldiasi ), large cats ( Smilodon sp. and Panthera sp.), a horse-sized mammal ( Macraucheni sp.) and two camelid species. Two other camelid species that still survive today are the guanaco and the Lama (vicugna) gracilis , along with other fauna such as birds and rodents. McCulloch states ‘an association between elements of the late Pleistocene fauna and humans is recorded at several sites' , one such site being Tres Arroyos on Tierra del Fuego (McCulloch et al., 1997: 28-29). But as evidenced from the archaeological record, the giant sloths were becoming extinct almost coinciding with man's arrival to the southern South American region. Were the animals hunted to extinction as man encountered them or was the event in association with or the result of environmental changes? Other extinctions by 12,000 BP include the mastodon and the panther ( Panthera [Onca] mesembrina ), while the sloth had disappeared by 8,000 BP . But as Borrero and McEwan note, these dates are mostly from deposits and not of the bone material themselves, which would have been critical in assessing human/fauna interactions. Also, while some of the mass extinctions are accounted for, other megafauna disappearances, like the horse, are not known with work ongoing to explain the unknown extinctions (Borrero and McEwan 1997: 43). Tellingly, four faunal species: the Nandu or Rhea ( Pterocnemia pennata ), huemul ( Hippocamelus bisulcus ), Puma ( Felis concolor ) and the zorro gris or grey fox ( Pseudolopex griseus ) are not present south of the Magellan Strait (Borrero and McEwan 1997: 42). Were they hunted to extinction or simply not present when Tierra del Fuego was separated from Patagonia by the formation of the Strait of Magellan? Could this have forced a change in subsistence for early migrants? These faunal extinctions and associated human subsistence activities need to be known in order to assess potential lifestyle changes such as possible migrations further south to the Antarctic Region. But recent reports utilising computer simulations, revealed that man in both the Americas and Australia, had hunted megafauna to extinction and that the environment had played a lesser part in the extinction process (Highfield 2001). As mentioned in Part 2, I envisage an early arrival into the Americas

mainly in opposition to the totalitarian nature of the Megafauna Overkill hypothesis. Martin's theory envisions a continual rate of human migration through the Americas while killing megafauna to the point of extinction. Adapting, technologically and environmentally, humans made it within a 2000- year period from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. This model is contrary to other evidence from differing continents (Gamble 1993). Also, South American sites such as Monte Verde, Chile (at 12,500 BP ) and Pedra Furada (11,500 BP ) argue for an earlier entry into the Americas suggesting a sustained development over time. Also from around 12,5000 to 10,000 BP , it has been estimated, from archaeological sources, that the population of South America would most likely have numbered around a few thousand (Dillehay 2000: 32). With South America's varied landscape and coastal resources, the pressure to hunt so overwhelmingly by so few people was probably not a chief factor in megafauna extinctions. Demand probably did not exceed supply. Also megafauna populations at that time would have to be established. South America did not have a vast reserve of herd animals, so proposed extinction dates falling outside of the big-game hunter horizon (11,200 to 10,800 BP , the so-called North American Clovis culture period) would seem to dispute the megafauna extinction theory. Even without megafauna, early migrants also had access to turtles, insects, aquatic plants and fauna and smaller game (Dillehay 2000: 5). Dillehay and archaeologists Luis Borrero and Colin McEwan also note that the varied geography and climate in regards to site location and their occupation dates also stress arguments for a slower migration rate. They also think that the extinctions in Patagonia occurred over a longer time period and that maybe not just over-hunting was the sole cause of the extinctions, indicating environmental changes as well (Borrero & McEwan 1997: 44; Dillehay 2000: 73-75). The work of paleo-climatologist Vera Markgraf reveals an environmental cause for some of the extinctions. Pollen data from South Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego found within ground sloth fossil dung, dated from 11,000 to 10,000 BP (the time of ground sloth extinctions), indicated that a warm, dry, species-rich shrubby grassland had replaced a cold, species-poor grassland. This in turn may have caused a shift in fauna, which competed for the new grassland resources, forcing the ground sloth into eventual extinction (Dillehay 2000: 73). Also, as stated, in the mid-Holocene (8,000 BP to 500 BP ) in Tierra del Fuego, temperate forests started to replace steppe vegetation. Prior to 8,000 BP there was a temperature rise which tailed off bringing a much drier climate by 7,000 BP , which then subsequently led to drier conditions from 6,000 to 5,000 BP , as evidenced from pollen studies. Archaeologist Francisco Mena believes that fauna numbers fell, due to diversified hunting patterns of

humans, in response to the climate change (Mena 1997: 47). Even in 4,800 BP when glacial advances and cold spells of ‘variable duration' brought more arid conditions favouring steppe grasslands, the archaeological records show that the Fuegians were not much affected because of environmental adaptations, groups consolidations and technological enhancements (Mena 1997: 54-55). In reviewing the data, Tierra del Fuego was inhabited by at least 11,800 BP (at Tres Arroyos), before it was separated from mainland Patagonia by the Strait of Magellan c. 8,000 BP . Extinctions of fauna were not as widespread nor as rapid in other northern Patagonian areas, which could indicate a more opportunistic hunting pattern, less resources or changes in resources. As will be seen, this forced a change in lifestyle. With climate variation from 12,000 BP and again from 8,000 to 5,000 BP , faunal changes could have resulted from resource pressures, including competition from humans besides hunting. Megafauna faced a veritable onslaught, a losing battle of survival. But given all of this data, did this in itself force a human migration away from Tierra del Fuego? Did some groups also lose the battle to adapt to climate and resource changes? Could they have seen a future further south? Two factors, which could help us in our quest in determining possible inhabitation of the Antarctic Region, are weapons and fishing. Patagonian weapons included various types of projectile points as early as 11,000 BP at Fell's Cave, and bola and sling stones at Monte Verde, 12,500 BP . One important development was the bow and arrow around 500 BP . Subtle differences between both north and south of the Strait of Magellan, suggests some form of cultural contact, possibly via boats, because of the near- simultaneous development (Mena 1997: 56). Borrero sees the bow and arrow as the basic weapon for hunting and war (Borrero 1997: 74). But were there armed conflicts between the indigenous groups of Tierra del Fuego? Was it a result of competing for depleted resources (e.g. food, land and people) or more culturally related? And was it such a deadly hazard that it forced changes in group-dynamics, like a switch to maritime lifestyles to lessen the burden on over-hunting and/or maybe a forced migration ever south? Nevertheless, the loss of such a resource for food, clothing and shelter may have forced smaller hunter-gatherer groups to move further south for more resources, the northern part of Patagonia and South America as a whole already bereft of large, ice-age animals and populated by more human rivals after 10,500 BP . A move south may have seemed at the time more productive, but instead of procuring more hunting grounds, the Fuegians may have eventually resorted to fishing for survival. A marine lifestyle may have led to open- ocean canoeing to secure fish, seal and whale resources and possibly the discovery of Southern Ocean islands. Island hopping could have led to an Antarctic Region culture.

Hunting in Australia In Australia, evidence of megafauna overkill is also argued over. Gamble rules out this scenario in Australia, citing that megafauna, like the 3m-tall, short-faced kangaroo, were still around 20,000 years after man's arrival (Gamble 1993: 216). But Stringer presents contrary data. Stressing that over the past 100,000 years, megafauna extinction rates were 73% in North America, 79% in South America, 86% in Australia and 14% in Africa. Tellingly, for Stringer, the Australian extinctions occurred 30,000 years ago coinciding with man's dispersion across Australia. Also, ten-foot kangaroos, the Diprotodon; a large rhino-sized wombat, giant koalas, deer-like marsupials, and horse-sized lizards, all disappeared shortly after man's arrival (Stringer and McKie 1997: 158, 162). But how much of this was really caused by man? One hundred thousand years is a long time, man hardly on the paleolithic crime scene, except in the megafauna overkill-free Africa. How specific is the data? Does it cover a millennium-by-millennium overview, with human/megafauna associations and definite correlations between human artefacts, like arrow points and weapons, with hunted carcasses? One tool/weapon that the Patagonians did not possess that the Australians did was the spear-thrower, a multipurpose tool. Clubs and boomerangs dated to 10,000 BP, have been found at Wyrie Swamp in South East Australia (Gamble 1993: 217). For over 30,000 years, the Aborigines seemingly had no definitive projectile points, the spear-thrower being the chief weapon (Dillehay 2000: 41-2). Could such a dynamic and technologically advanced weapon have hastened the demise of the megafauna? And if so, could this be enough to have caused migration? Like the Yamana in Tierra del Fuego, could some Aborigine groups have turned to a maritime lifestyle and eventually left Australia altogether in pursuit of other resources?

Fishing Finding a nutritious sustaining diet for the Antarcticans in a land without adequate terrestrial fauna to hunt will be difficult, but necessary. Would we see a midden of marine animal bones and frozen waste from hundreds or thousands of years ago? Would we find corrals for seals and penguins, quick and easy sources of meat, eggs and fuel, which may have been used to breed more. Reconstructing plant and animal environments would necessitate finding datable specimens. Were there any types of animals in the Antarctic Region, besides seals and penguins, that man could have hunted? Or did these and other animals die out after the split from the other southern continents some tens of million of years ago and the ensuing glacial periods?

An Antarctican fishing industry could have been established, providing food, clothing and oil. Krill-attracted whales and other sea life would have been an abundant food source, with fish, seals, penguins and birds, and their eggs eaten, with some of them and fresh water needing to be stored or preserved (Fernandez-Armesto 2000: 460). Krill, a shrimp-like crustacean inhabit the waters around Antarctica and are a food source for seals, penguins, whales and fish. However, on capture by humans (due to the catching process), the krill quickly decompose. It is only now that modern technology has found a way of keeping krill fresh for markets, but this process could now deplete krill stocks and endanger seal and penguin feeding sources (Clover 2006). It is doubtful that the simple technology from the past could have depended on krill for great sources of food, though other methods may have been utilized. Since krill levels would have been sustainable in the past, there would have been more seals, whales and fish to catch without fears of over-fishing. A fishing industry would not be hard to sustain if correlations to the North Polar Region are permissible. Rowley-Conwy writes that as species move away from the equator they decrease in numbers, but their individual numbers increase dramatically. However, because these species number are so small, changes in the environment can greatly affect the system. The Inuit have countered this by being able to effect a change in their complexity, which can be seen in the archaeological record (Rowley-Conwy 1999: 349-351). Sustainable fishing may be the Inuit way, but was this practiced in the Antarctic Region? What quantity of fish was there? Were they easy to catch? How did they fish? Would we find nets? Were the Antarctic islands fishable in the first place or jump-off points for deep ocean fishing? Could this have been sustainable? The use of bone, oils and skins from seal, penguins and fish, have been demonstrated, but was this from a sustained industry of one-off opportunities?

Fishing in Tierra del Fuego The marine lifestyle of the Fuegians is a more recent feature of their culture (beginning around 6,000 BP ), which before the separation of Tierra del Fuego from mainland Patagonia by the Strait of Magellan (8,000 BP ) was dominated by hunting and gathering. By 6,000 BP , hunting techniques and technology had changed. Sea lions [ Otaria and Arctocephalus ], cormorants and penguins were hunted in the Strait of Magellan and the areas around Seno Otway, Isla Navarino, the Beagle Channel, Englefield and Tunal 1. In the last three sites, there is evidence of previous hunter-gatherer groups from the mainland adopting a maritime existence in Tierra del Fuego. Bone tools, harpoons and tree-bark watercraft were found (Mena 1997: 51). Whales could be hunted 'for days on end' , if not already found beached. Seals and otters were

also hunted (Borrero 1997: 77; Chapman 1997: 82). As with hunting, was there a marine equivalent to megafaunal overkill prior to the European whalers and sealers? Could ancient seal and whale populations be gauged? Did climate and any non-sustainable fishing practices lead to pressure to migrate? If both hunting and fishing practices became untenable in Tierra del Fuego and moving was a non-option due to population pressure (back to Carneiro's theory) then the only options would have been to migrate or die. And as mentioned before, discovery of the Southern Ocean Islands and island hopping could have led to an Antarctic Region culture.

Fishing in Australia In Australia, ocean-going technology is attested to by rock art in North Kimberley and by the first inhabitants themselves. The Aborigines may have practiced their ocean skills for a limited time after Sahul disappeared, before forgetting or abandoning them, maybe for terrestrial hunting, climate or cultural changes. But coastal fishing may have continued while they explored the coasts for other resources. Only the Tiwi now possess boating skills. More studies into probable causes of Australia discontinuance of an ocean- going tradition will have to be gathered.

Ecological support and sustenance Besides meat and fish, other sources of sustenance would be needed. Drinking water, small game and plant food would be needed as would storage and replenishment systems. Fresh drinking water from rivers and lakes and the limited species of flora, which grow in soil that research has indicated are young, may have been able to support the Antarcticans on a limited scale. But could any of the invertebrates or flora have been edible and cultivated by settlers in the Antarctic Region? Flax growing on islands and collected by migrants could have been used to thatch structures (as on New Zealand and Tristan Island) (Hince 2000: 131), tussock grass (Hince 2000: 361), cabbage (Hince 2000: 200), fernbush and buckthorn (Hince 2000: 127, 73) all from other islands, could also have been used for food, clothing, shelter and for fire. The origin of these plants seem to be indigenous to those islands and not the result of intrusive migrants from Australia or Tierra del Fuego, though assessment of this supposition and whether the wind, sea or southern continent break up contributed to plant distribution needs to be analysed. Pollen studies can be used to see if plants are local or foreign to the region and also for dating. The shape, surface and specific species type can indicate the type of environment and specific

interglacial period they belong to (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 121, 226). With modern man ranging over Antarctica as scientist and tourist, he is bringing with him non-indigenous plants, microbes and animals, such as grasses and invertebrates. On some of the Antarctic Islands, human introduced rats, cats, rabbits, reindeer and other species have destroyed native colonies of sea- birds, changed local ecosystems and destroyed native vegetation. Warming climates are also allowing these alien intruders to survive longer, undermining any native species and possibly obscure or destroy past evidence for native species or past human-brought species. Various Antarctic organizations are pressuring the UN International Maritime Organisation to adopt stringent rules in limiting ma n’s affect on Antarctic a’s ecosystem (Edwards 2006: 16). If human agency is a factor, then their origins might be able to be re-traced. Research on distribution of species, their survival and spread is ongoing. With only 0.4 percent of Antarctica free of permanent snow or ice, plants would have had to find bare ground to grow on, though some lichens are 500 years old, while some large moss banks have been dated back to 7000 years ago (Rubin 2000: 183). For humans, proteins, vitamins and a high caloric intake would be needed to maintain a core body temperature of 37ºC, with anti-heat loss, anti-exposure techniques and equipment also needed (Rowley-Conwy 1999: 349; Humble 2001). With Tierra del Fuego relatively close to the Antarctic Region, would possible migrants from there have been able to cope with those factors? Surely Antarctic furs, skins, fish and meats would have sufficed to keep settlers satisfied for a while. Storage and preservation of food would not have been a problem in the Antarctic Region. Pits could have been dug and food stored near the freeze line or under rock piles. Desalinised water either from rivers and lakes would have been needed for survival. This might be accomplished by freezing water, rather than evaporation (Lombrg 2001: 153) and/or maybe involve ice-berg scrapings or blocks being melted down. Can we find other evidence of freshwater lakes or rivers that could have been used for drinking? Lake Vanda, for example, in Wright Valley, East Antarctica has a two-tier ecosystem. Beneath a 4-metre thick ice layer is a 45cm low-nutrient freshwater level, while below that is a saline water level. Each layer has its own microbial environment (Rubin 2000: 184). Was this its original condition or did the salt precipitate to the lower levels because of its composition and the temperature? Were there lakes and rivers on the Peninsula or the Antarctic Islands that could have been used for water and if so, then how were they replenished? Were they seasonal flows, depending on winter/spring precipitation levels? How much of an effect did the Southern Ocean have on the Antarctic's liquid ecosystem concerning saline levels?

Ecological support and sustenance in Tierra del Fuego and Australia Besides marine life, sea birds' meat and eggs, otters and mussels, the Fuegians also ate insects, seasonal plants like berries ( Berberis buxifolia ), wild celery ( Apium australe ) and fungi usually collected by women (Borrero 1997: 68-9, 72; Chapman 1997: 82; Dillehay 2000: 5). In Australia, Panicum , a grass seed and Ipomoea , a desert tuber were part of the diet at least by 5,000 BP and earlier (Gamble 1993: 218). Depending on excavation techniques and sampling strategies, information on this type of sustenance could be lost depriving archaeologists of valuable information concerning other forms of sustenance besides megafauna and fishing. It could also help when contemplating what could have been used for food in the Antarctic Region. But in both Tierra del Fuego and Australia, there seems to be no early agricultural or pastoral traditions. So in the Antarctic Region, we would either see no evidence of this or something new, like volcanic or guano soil usage, as discussed below.

Antarctic Region soils Geoarchaeologist George Rapp Jr. and geologist Christopher Hill cite the five forming factors of soil as: the parent rock, organisms (including humans), topography, climate and time. Soil they define as: ‘Earth surface material that supports plant life and is altered by continuous chemical and biotic activity and weathering' (Rapp and Hill 1998: 29-30). As mentioned, Antarctica has the ‘coldest and driest climate in the world' due to locked-up water, resulting in very low humidity and precipitation, causing the soil- forming process to be reduced (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 43). Antarctica was certainly not a breadbasket, but could plants have grown on rocky outcrops, modified to suit the climate and water situation? In looking at Maritime Antarctica, its soils are largely raw mineral types, akin to Continental Antarctica. Not much organic matter exists leading to sparse flora and fauna. Some peat can be up to 2 meters thick, but is unlike its temperate counterpart, due to poor drainage and a dearth of active micro- organisms (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 87). So if the underlying rock is non- conductive to rapid weathering, then soil formation would not be readily forthcoming, making any prospects for agriculture low. But as can be seen, places like the Chatham Islands and the Aluetians do not need agriculture to survive. The cold desertification of Antarctica could explain the loss of the soils either through glacial or aeolian effects or maybe even compaction. But can these potentially lost soils be traced either in the sea or on land as moraines, drift and till? Sea cores may have to be taken to gain a representative sample of possible soil types in order to assess when they were

removed from the top surfaces, their origin and suitability for plant life. Though there may have been limited cultivation for personal and family use with lichens, mosses and small vascular plants, there was probably no wide- scale agricultural programme. Lack of heat, sunlight, soil, clay, and the presence of strong storms would have hindered this technique. Short-lived areas of cultivation may have been used, but might have been eroded away over time by glacial or aeolian action, buried under snow or ice, or disturbed by other geological processes. Nitrates and phosphates could leave clues behind from human habitation. In another cold climate region, studies from Greenland have found ancient Norse sites from sampling sites, which had plants of different chemistry, due to nitrogen isotope variations. Plants growing over old sites had larger doses of nitrogen-15 than nitrogen-14. Human habitation, farming and waste caused an enrichment of nitrogen (Commisso & Nelson 2006: 1167). Likewise, phosphates are enhanced through growing plants and crops and from human and animal activity in producing waste. 2000 parts per million (ppm) or greater can indicate a burial (Rapp and Hill 1998; 195). Detection of altered concentrations (whether present, raised, lowered or absent) of nitrates, phosphates, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulfur, could indicate human activity (Rapp and Hill 1998: 195). While Antarctica had no extensive, if any, homesteads and farming, some extant soils may have been buried with enriched nitrogen and phosphorous, associated with human habitation. Antarctican populations may have seen advantages in using other types of soils to increase plant growth. Could volcanic soils have supplemented cultivation? On Deception Island north of the peninsula, thermally heated ground from active volcanoes has changed the surrounding soils and flora. Algae and bacteria can grow on newly formed cinder cones within a year, with organisms able to survive if moisture, temperature, texture, pH levels (near neutral) and nutrient supply are sufficient. Clay was more abundant near the summit of Mt. Erebus, but it was also acidic with low plant populations. While the potential for growth of microfauna was as much as any fertile, temperate soil, researchers thought that the conditions were only temporary while the heat lasted (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 95-6). On Signy Island, which typifies the Maritime Antarctic, there are lichens, mosses and a well-rooted vascular plant. But the absence of soil-mixing organisms, like earthworms, and strong acidic soils on non-limestone and marble surfaces also create problems for growth. Guano has been used by north coast Peruvians as fertiliser for centuries. Penguin, bird and marine-mammal excreta could provide phosphorous and nitrogen to soils, but freezing, decomposition and leaching of nutrients are a problem (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 91-2). The richest soils with organisms found in the Peninsula are

usually from penguin rookeries with peat deposits and guano soils (derived from droppings, feathers and bird remains). Dubbed ornithogenic soils, they may also help in potentially dating geomorphic events, but abandoned nests can be difficult to date due to desiccation and decomposition, the soil returning to its original state (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 211-218). There would have been no shortage of guano from the myriad of penguins and other birds. Early Antarcticans may not have known about systematic cultivation or the effects of guano and volcanic soils, but later populations, possibly post-6,000 BP and into Columbian times may have, even using soils on bare and sheltered areas during favourable climate conditions to enhance growing prospects.

Lithics As it stands now, the Madrid Protocol and the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources Activities (CRAMRA) bans mining or drilling for 50 years. Scientists want to study the formation processes of minerals and more specifically geological processes, rather than exploit the little economic wealth (Rubin 2000: 59, 185). But in the past could minerals have been mined or quarried then made into artefacts and/ or traded, an independent discovery of Antarctic metallurgy? Copper is located on the South Shetland Islands and in isolated areas with gold and silver along the Peninsula (Crossley 2000: 92). But was it mineable? Can ancient quarries be found or would they have been eroded away, infilled by later geological processes, or lay unrecognised because no one thought to look specifically for them? Would any finished products be recognised as such again due to erosion and archaeological bias? Provenancing, discussed in Part 4, could greatly increase our understanding of Antarctican materials and their possible origins.

Lithics in Tierra del Fuego The lithic industry in Patagonia is remarkable. Lithics from the so-called ‘Central Patagonian Tradition' consists of unifacial blades, flakes and front- scrapers. Some points (fish-tail projectiles from Fell's Cave c.11,000 to 10,200 BP ) were found at surrounding sites as well as bolas. This new technological impulse in the Central Patagonia Tradition seems to accompany rock art, especially in the Santa Cruz region around Los Toldos, dated from 7,000 to 5,000 BP (Mena 1997: 48; Dillehay 2000: 100). Mena argues that the Central Patagonia Tradition reflects Andean contact in regards to similar triangular bifacial points that have been found, though bolas were preferred in Tierra del Fuego for hunting (Mena 1997: 50). But I feel that contact with Andeans would also have influenced much further other

factors like architecture, boat building, religion, agriculture and pastoralism. So while there may have been limited contacts through time with many other cultures, the Fuegians were either highly selective, highly resistant or self-proficient as inventors themselves. These are early and probable independent indigenous lithic industries. In Tierra del Fuego, at Marazzi, near the Magellan Strait, dated to 9,500 BP , unifacial lithics associated with guanaco remains have been found, whereas at the earlier site of Tres Arroyas (11,800 to 10,200 BP ) about 50km north east of Marazzi and by the coast, boasts bifacial lithics and faunal remains guanaco, fox and sloth (Borrero and McEwan 1997: 42). Besides flakes, cores and points, sling stones and grooved bola stones were found in Monte Verde (12,500 BP ), Fell's Cave (11,000 BP ) and in eastern Brazillian sites (11,500 to 11,000 BP ). Birds and various small game were hunted by the Yaghans and the Ona with slings and bolas, which could stun guanacos and rhea (Dillehay 2000: 94-5). Such stones would survive in the archaeological record, but their authenticity would have to be proven, lest they be dismissed as natural formations. Dillehay asserts that not many sites in South America have artefacts of ‘top quality raw material' like chert and obsidian. Quartzite, quartz, basalt and andesite were the main materials used (Dillehay 2000: 95). Could such materials and tool types found in the Antarctic Region be traced back to its cultural origin?

Lithics in Australia In Australia, there is no evidence for fluted points, though there are a few retouched tools. Alan Bryan, from the University of Alberta, believes that the earliest lithics in Australia have no projectile points, just simple flaked tools dating back to 30,000 years ago. Indeed, his point was made in reference to North and South Ameri can early migrants who had few standardised tools, but probably a ‘simple basic technology, composed of flakes and simple core tools, which could be used to make useful objects from fiber, wood, sinew, skin and bone' (Dillehay 2000: 41-42). Simple tools for simple times, no matter where you were. It seems that either early Aborigine tools were of wood or bone, which is unaccounted for in the archaeological record (Gamble 1993: 216). In Arnhem Land, Malangangerr and Nawamoyn rock shelters dated from 24,000 to 16,000 BP have thick stone flakes and horse-hoof shaped cores similar to early Willandra Lake stone tools. Also found were small igneous-stone hatchets (Gamble 1993: 220). The tools at Willandra, along with ovens of baked clay, ochre for decoration, megafauna hunting and evidence for early sea-faring to reach Australia, show a sophisticated enough people who could have found

migration a possible answer to any uprising population and resource problems. Comparisons may be made to South American tools, which also had simple, but multifunctional flakes and core tools to make products from fiber, wood, sinew, skin and bone. In fact, unifacial tools are more visible in late Pleistocene South America than bifacials (as opposed to North America) a trait more in keeping with contemporaneous Australian technology (Dillehay 2000: 218-9). As seen above, Australia only had simple tools from 30,000 BP with South America having an unrelated, but similar typology around 20,000 years later, when more complex tools (fluted points, bifaces, slings etc) came along. With provenance studies, the type of tool and the tool material found in the Antarctic Region could indicate the time of arrival and possibly the cultural origin.

Lithics in the Antarctic Region If lithic tools were discovered in the Antarctic Region, would they be recognised as such? Possible Antarctic lithic forms like unifacial cores, bifacial projectile points, knives, scrapers and grinders could have been made from granite, chert or obsidian. Bone material could have been used for delicate artefacts like hooks, needles and digging sticks, a detail noted by Dillehay who thinks that since bifacial projectile points are not usually found in association with a unifacial technology, that these points may have been made from wood or bone (Dillehay 2000: 105). If bifacial technology was used in Antarctica, then probably a unifacial technology was used with bifacial points made from seal, whale or other bone. But depending on the time of arrivals of migrants to the region, then it is possible that bifacials had not been invented yet or if it had, not transferred with them. Would Fuegian or Aboriginal stone tools be useful as diagnostic factors? To find out what possible changes over time and geography lithic typologies could have developed, a theoretical framework would have to be set up in order to distinguish specific cultural traits or localised temporal and geographical characteristics. Here are a few theoretical lithic typologies:

Technological chronologichronologicalcal Geographic area Australasian 60,000 to 14,000 BP Australia Australian modified 14,000 to 12,000 BP South America Fuegian 12,000 to 6,000 BP Patagonia Fuegian modified 6,000 BP to c. AD 1800s Antarctic Region Chinese AD 1422 to ? Antarctic Region

Above, the first Australasian date, 60,000 BP refers to the early entry

into Australia by migrants and their technology from South East Asia. Over time, their technology changes and with a later possible move to South America, their technology is modified either through necessity or by trade with indigenous cultures. 14,000 BP represents the latest possible entry time into Patagonia during a land-bridge opening to Tierra del Fuego. Either the Australians stay or they move on to the Antarctic Region. After the Australian adaptation or exit from the area (e.g. Luzia in Brazil), 12,000 BP sees archaeological evidence of new indigenous sites in Patagonia, the first Americans have arrived with their technology. Four thousand years later Tierra del Fuego becomes separated from the mainland due to the rising sea levels with maritime lifestyles beginning around 6,000 BP . The Fuegians develop the technology to be able to travel further south if need be. If Fuegians did migrate to the Antarctic Region, then they would have had to have modified their technology to survive. They may have lasted until the 1800s, but were extinct by the time that Europeans discovered Antarctica. The lithic assemblage could be reflected in figure 18 (an archaeological assemblage), as related to possible population movements from Asia and Australia into South America and then the Antarctic Region. Further, functional and morphological typologies could serve as diagnostics, also to reveal local, diffused, adapted or modified tools. Terrestrial and marine type tools, which can have the same function but different morphology, can be compared between Australia and Patagonia for any similarities or differences that might infer migration from one of these areas. The Antarctic Region might have these typologies or other tools (possibly the Chilean flint cores), but until any substantive work is carried out, any evidence will remain hidden or locked in the ‘file drawer'. An ‘Antarctican toolkit' might have been needed to cope with different resources, fauna or environmental factors. Tools from ‘home' may have been modified by Fuegians to suit their new surroundings and purposes. A new toolkit may also have been produced from the local surrounding. Antarctic lithic materials would have been plentiful. But what did they look like? And did they survive time and the elements? If lithics are found, could it be determined if they were expedient or formalised tools, shedding insight into the possible length of time settlements were established in the Antarctic, whether long-lived settlements or seasonal or accidental voyages? Anthropologist William Andrefsky Jr., from Washington State University, believes that the type of lithics can determine the type of people that used them. Certain bifacial cores could indicate a mobile people, since the cores would be portable, able to be transformed for multiple tasks to ‘reduce the risk' of taking only prepared ‘formalised' tools

(Andrefsky 2001 : 150). Formalised tools (bifacial points) require great effort to make, while expedient tools (blades, scrapers, knives and adzes) could be ‘knocked out' according to need. But expedient tools can also defy diagnostic readings because of their varied nature and need. Their unspecific size, shape and quality could render them invisible to the archaeological record (Andrefsky 2001: 30; Dillehay 2000: 103-4). Andrefsky showed that Parry and Kelly's 1987 research into mobility/sedentism and tool type confirmed that bifacial type technology was used more in mobile groups. Bifacial cores were more adaptable, multi- functioned, re-workable, maintainable and portable in comparison to blanks and tools made on the move. The ready-to-use bifacial tool was ideal for mobile groups in uncertain situations and could represent a dividing line between mobile and sedentary groups and their technological prowess (Andrefsky 2001: 152, 185). Lithic morphology and function could help in site prediction. If a group is mobile, then their trail could be possibly followed from one seasonal camp to another or from one lithic source to another, by following their lithic ‘breadcrumbs' of debris. Or perhaps if a lithic source or quarry was located, then Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or spatial analysis could be used to locate a near-by sedentary camp, which could then be studied. Marine-type tools could tell us if a fishing community was near-by, maybe a specialised area for boat builders. Could the above lithic studies be applied to the Antarcticans? Can any discovered Antarctic technology be used in this classification system? Would Antarcticans move around the islands in search of new resources, leaving behind facets of their technology and culture? Andrefsky iterates that interpretations of lithics are not always accurate, for functions and morphologies change over time. Site interpretations are thus affected and biased (Andrefsky 2001: 189). If morphology and function are flexible, can all of the tools depicted in figure 18 be correct? If these tools were found in the Antarctic Region, what would their morphological- function description be: Terrestrial or marine? What about their cultural significance? Were the Antarcticans mobile or sedentary? A stone artefact could reveal a whole wealth of information. Apart from stonework, bone tool technology (whale and guanaco bone) was also used for sophisticated multi-barbed harpoons, chisels and wedges in Tierra del Fuego as shown in figure 18 (Mena 1997: 51; Borrero 1997: 68-9). Could they also be found in the Antarctic Region? Further obsidian and bone working technology represent two typologies not found further north in Patagonia (Mena 1997: 53). Perhaps they were ‘southern Patagonian traditions' that maybe could be sought in the Antarctic Region along with unifacial tools. There is much that Antarctic archaeology could achieve, combine with

phenomenology, paleogeoecology and culture ecology. Understanding past Antarctican life through lithics alone may bring us closer to discovering remains, sites and other artefacts. If the Chinese had arrived at Antarctica and left artefacts, like anchor stones, markers or shelters, what would survive of them now? Could we tell whether they were modern or not? Any stone artefacts may be worn and resemble large, natural rocks, thus be disregarded by archaeologists precisely because these large eroded rocks look like an artefact, but could not be because they cannot conceive of an early entry into Antartica.

Cultural factors Anne Chapman, in her descriptions of the Selk'nam and Yamana ceremonies discusses the various rites and initiations. It is noteworthy that the participants are painted in specific colours and patterns, which denote spirits; the Selk'nam also using painted guanaco-leather masks. The Yamana were also painted, and all but one of their ceremonies (the chixaus), were for male initiates (Chapman 1997: 82-107). To me, the body painting aspects are highly reminiscent of Australian and Melanesian initiations. Though speculative, the story of Luzia rears its head once more, where we can imagine some South Americans as the last remnant of an Australian wave of migrants or their influence 12,000 to 6,000 years ago (from Luzia's time until evidence of a Fuegian maritime culture). Could there be other similarities between Fuegian and Australasian ceremonies, like ceremonial accoutrements, songs, dances, stories, etc.? Extinctions and intermarriage with later indigenous cultures could account for cultural dilution and language changes, with some old Australasian ceremonies still retain in the memory. DNA studies could confirm this, but purebred Fuegians have now died out. Australasian influence and encouragement through stories and familial connections could account for an early sea-going tradition among the Fuegians and the origins of possible Antarctic settlements. Australian Aborigine technology may be longer-lived than Patagonia technology (e.g. lithics, boat-building, hunting etc.), but travelling to the Antarctic Region would not necessarily be a relatively modern feat. Recordings (myths, art, songs) surely would have been made, unless it has already been done and the interpretation of such a feat is misunderstood or unrealised. I would conjecture that such a voyage was in the remote past before recording of such an event was possible, or contains an ambiguous message, or not recorded at all. No return trip to tell of such a momentous voyage may have been possible.

Anatomy of an Antarctican DNA, genetics and linguistics A problem in finding Antarcticans would be in identifying their origins. As Dillehay says ‘yet although we generally know what these [Paleo-Indian] groups looked like archaeologically, we know next to nothing about their genetics and biology' (Di llehay 2000: 225). Archaeogenetic studies could help in this field. New environments and adaptations to them would cause cultures on their way through the Americas to change their habits and traditions. And after other groups split off to found their own societies, new traditions would emerge. This can be seen in the archaeology of Patagonia 11,500 to 10,500 BP, where at this time small traveling groups would take generations to cross from Siberia to the Americas (Dillehay 2000: 224-5; Fagan 2004: 37). If one culture migrated to various parts of the world, there would be tell- tale signs of their origins in their DNA. This includes Neves' differences between non-Mongoloids and Mongoloids. As far as we know, all genetic markers return to Africa, the first wave of modern humans leaving around 100,000 years ago with a second around 50,000 years ago. Even if from the first wave, modern humans had moved across Asia, Polynesia, Australia, South America to Antarctica in a truly incredible feat and evolving all the way into an undetected culture, any found remains should be able to be traced back to their origins (depending on the condition of the DNA, of course). Webster also cites genetic evidence from Erlich at the Department of Human Genetics Roche Molecular Systems, that the Cayapa Indians of Ecuador have similarities to Japanese and South East Asian populations, absent from North East populations (Webster 2005: 3; Trachtenberg 1995). Erlich and colleagues also have supporting data, from HLA allele frequencies, that a bottleneck period during the colonization of the Americas, since 20,000 to 30,00 years ago (Erlich 1997). This possible mixture of Negritoid, south east Asian and Australoid features and genetics could be confusing to archaeologists as they continue to investigate the colonization of the Americas. Could Antarctican remains be identified and traced back to specific cultural or family groups by studying their surviving DNA? In Peru a cemetery recently found outside Lima revealed thousands of mummified bodies dating from Inca times. Now Dr. Johan Reinhard, explorer in residence for National Geographic, hopes to use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) transmitted through maternal lines, nuclear DNA and samples from living subjects from around Inca South America to find matches and to trace the descendants of the mummies. There is a precedent for this. Previously, Reinhard had discovered three sacrificed teenagers 22,000 feet up on Mount Llullaillaco in Argentina, one girl frozen ‘as if she fell asleep a few days ago'. The DNA tests on the girl

had been carried out three years ago by Dr. Keith McKenny, of George Mason University, who was successfully able to trace her descendant, an Argentine man living 1000 miles away (Highfield 2002). But while mtDNA is one possibility, Y-chromosome markers, transmitted through paternal lines are also another. These markers possess a ‘molecular clock', which can potentially chart the time of group splits as migrants trekked through or coasted down the Americas. Isolated groups would possess differing ‘clocks' through random mutations, while also retaining parts of the ‘parent clock', allowing geneticists to trace group divergences (Dillehay 2000: 239; Fagan 2004: 37). But could any of these tests and techniques be of any use to ancient and frozen Antarcticans? DNA is notoriously difficult to retrieve from bones thousands of years old anyway, whether degraded, contaminated or not.

Linguistics Linguistic studies are often used to support DNA data. Linguistic historian Johanna Nichols' research argues for a 30,000 year time span to explain differences between North and South American languages, which is relatively similar to the 25,000 year figure that molecular anthropologists say mtDNA studies should estimate that separating groups began to split from original groups and become isolated (Dillehay 2000: 6). It would be interesting to know if the Antarcticans spoke proto-Australasian or a derivative, a paleo-Amerind tongue, or a completely unknown and now extinct language. Extinction is also a possibility for the last speakers of Yaghan (Yamana) and Kawesqar, two tribes in Patagonia. Cristina Calderon is now purportedly one of the last native speakers of Yaghan (and usually charges for the privilege of hearing her speak), while only six known speakers of Kawasqar remain (Hitt 2004: 35 & 38). These languages have ‘collapsed’ from thousands of speakers to a handful in two generations and are losing out to Spanish. But also being lost are the history, knowledge and myths of that culture without being translated or recorded (Hitt 2004: 37). With no written language from pre-Columbian times and with the oral language dying out, knowledge of ancient journeys and myths will be lost. Also lost would be a way of mapping ancient languages from South America and Tierra del Fuego to chart population movements, geographically and through time. But time is running out. Without a language to assess, corresponding data from DNA studies may not be enough to identify potential Antarcticans. But even in finding an Antarctican, we would still have to know what kind of person the DNA built and other factors, like the environment, that shaped them. What would an Antarctican look like?

Physical Attributes What would the physical attributes of an Antarctican be? How could this reveal their origins? Bones and teeth of human remains are as important as artifacts in determining the heritage of peoples. If these physical remains do exist in the Antarctic Region, then their bones, and possibly even preserved tissues, would preserve better than in other erosive climates, in the cold, under rocks or ice and in caves or sheltered areas. These remains would tell archaeologists about life expectancy, diet, disease, sex, age groups, migration patterns and other cultural and environmental factors (Brothwell 1981: 73-4). Teeth preserve better than bone (Brothwell 1981: 111), but studies on bones would indicate whether the skeleton belonged to a male or female and what form they took, whether robust or gracile, which could indicate migration routes and origins. This is the case with studies the world over, but in Australia, a possible contender for the origins of the Antarcticans, human remains still yield controversial data. As discussed in Part 2, colonisation of Australia (Sahul) could have occurred as long ago as 80,000 BP , or as discussed below, early Afro- Australian populations (c. 40,000 BP ) or Homo erectus (c. 60,000 to 70,000 BP ) could have crossed the ocean to Australia and carried on to the Antarctic Region, via South America. Conversely, South American Indians could have initiated a later colonisation of the Antarctic Region. Did one or more populations inhabit Antarctica at separate times? And if so which one was more successful? One problem at the forefront of Australian archaeology is the chronology of colonisation. Lake Mungo's gracile population pre-dates Kow Swamp's robust population by at least 15,000 years (Gowlett 1994: 139; Stringer and McKie 1996: 163) which seems to reverse the trend of modern graciles following archaic robusts. Lake Mungo, dated to 32,000 BP had a discernibly gracile, female skeleton 25,000 years old, which had been cremated. Kow Swamp on the other hand had 40 buried, robust-like skeletons with grave goods and was dated to around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago (Gowlett 1994: 137-8). As mentioned, other sites, like Swan River and Malakunanja, go back 40,000 and 60,000 years, respectively (Gamble 1993: 215), the latter site and Nauwalabila having stone tools (Stringer and McKie 1996: 166) though it is not known which form of human lived there. What can account for the apparent discrepancy in human forms and related dates, and how does this relate to Antarctica? Gowlett sees early inhabitation at Lake Mungo and Keilor coinciding with a glacial period between 40,000 to 80,000 years ago that would have allowed for a relatively short crossing between South East Asia and Sahul. The robust Homo erectus could have arrived 60,000 to 70,000 years ago and lived in isolation, while more modern populations could have arrived up to 40,000 years ago

(Gowlett 1994: 139). So what the archaeology then finds are two separate populations arriving at different times and living in isolation, which presents a distorted picture of their lives. Alan Thorne, a multi-regionalist theorist, believes in the two-population theory. To Thorne, Lake Mungo was inhabited by Peking Man-types from China, while the more robust Java Man settled in Kow Swamp. The two populations then interbred around 10,000 BP (much like Neves' Mongoloid/non-Mongoloid interbreeding in South America) to become the ancestors of the Aborigines (Stringer and McKie 1996: 163-4). But does the archaeology support this theory? Is there another solution? In answer to Dillehay's robust/gracile skeletal data, Peter Brown from the University of New England, among others, argue that form may not represent different species, but different genders. The more robust forms could be males, the gracile forms females, meaning that only one cultural group colonised Australia (Stringer and McKie 1996: 164). The 40 or so skeletons found at Kow Swamp exhibited skull robustness and deformations associated with Homo erectus , but which Brown states could be attributed to head binding or ritual head clubbing used to settle disputes. Further complications arise because studies of Australian skeletons are highly prohibited (Stringer and McKie 1996:165-6). So the archaeological disputes continue. Robust and gracile forms may also be present in Antarcticans as an adaptation to cold (as with the Inuit), where stocky forms could help to indicate the length of time humans had been present there and gracile, long- limbed people may indicate recent, warmer climate adapted colonists. The possibility of skull deformation cannot be discounted, whether intentional, unintentional or from disease (Brothwell 1981: 48). It is a technique practiced widely in South America for centuries, binding the head from childhood, as an aesthetically pleasing attribute. Was it practiced in Neves' Afro-Australian homeland and then brought to Brazil or Patagonia? Could skull deformation account for Luzia's skull shape, thus biasing data and countering Neves' c laims? Was the rest of Luzia's skeletal form, shape and size in keeping with racial types or was just the skull different? There are still more questions to be answered before skeletal measurements can confirm racial types. Teeth can also be used as an identification factor as they differ from North American and Asian populations (Fagan 2004: 37). Christy G. Turner, an anthropologist and dental prehistorian from Arizona State University, studied, measured and compared over 15,000 sets of teeth from North America and Europe finding that North American origins could be traced through northern Asia. Also, within the North American types, three unique groupings could be seen, indicating three different migration events up to 12,000 years ago. Turner tried to link these data into linguistic correlations, but this theory was

discounted by linguists, who knew that languages spread differently than genetics and physical attributes, which also depend on mutation rates (Mithen 2003: 221-222 & 225-226). Antarctican teeth may bear residual features from their parent culture or even unique facets in growth, shape and size, due to an Antarctican diet (e.g. foods and disease), environmental factors (long dark winters inhibiting normal growth patterns), cultural aspects such as rites (deliberate tooth shaping), and wear from tool making (aiding in plant, wood and bone processing). In any case, Antarctica's possible settlement could have mirrored Australia's. Early Homo erectus or modern humans could have preceded each other in colonising Antarctica from Australia as early as 70,000 BP , though more likely during an interglacial period c. 40,000 years ago. One population group for Antarctica would be expected, but two or even three (from South America) would be mind-boggling. The remoteness of an Antarctican culture may reveal a society so different to other early man, that their visibility may be too low in the archaeological record. Could the Antarcticans have evolved into another species ( Homo antarcticus ), akin to the ‘Hobbits ’ (Homo floresiensis ) from the Island of Flores, Indonesia? Could Antarcticans have been another dwarf culture, developing to conserve energy and resources on the Antarctic islands? They would have been more robust, hairier and adapted to the cold, windy environment. If derived from Homo erectus stock, then maybe Antarctican skulls might harbour a difference in their cranial capacity to their Australian/Fuegian ‘cousins' revealing an increase in intelligence for the skills needed to survive and to communicate in such a specialised environment. How would they have coped with warming climate changes? Did they migrate, adapt or die? A possible Antarctican community may have been of close kin groups, linguistic-group unknown, with industries based on fishing and limited hunting. Limited cultivation may have been used in conjunction with a mobile pattern of coastal subsistence. The species of human and the timing of possible colonisation could affect how the landscape was experienced and the types of artefacts used. Whichever race or species settled in Antarctica, the land could have been seen as a special place; barren, foreboding and isolated as it was. Sailing the Southern Ocean may have been a rite of passage or of special significance, an ‘Antarctican dreamtime' –a mythology evolving to explain the landscape. As phenomenology could be used to comment on present social standing and understanding (Hodder 1999: 15), modern scientists on Antarctica now must feel a greater self-awareness in their relation to the landscape and their relative isolation. They are the modern-day Antarcticans and their being there should

enhance their ‘Antarcticness', reflecting past Antarctican life.

Where are the Antarcticans? But so far, no Antarcticans have been found. The absence of bodies is not a big deal, for even late Pleistocene remains in the Americas (including Kennewick Man, Penon Woman and Luzia) are rare to find and to definitively date. All other evidence for the existence of late Pleistocene humans is artefactual (Dillehay 2000: 227). In an environment such as the Antarctic Region's that should preserve remains, where none have been found, may serve to show that:

1. No one was there. 2. They have not yet been found due to archaeological fault or biases (no one lived in the Antarctic stupid!). 3. Remains may have been disturbed or destroyed by geological processes, creating a low archaeological visibility. 4. It may also reflect burial practices of not only Antarcticans, but also late Holocene Americans and Australians. On the journey to the Antarctic Region, dead may have been buried at sea; left exposed on beaches, in caves or mountains; or may have been used for fuel and/or food. 5. Related to the above may be the reproductive viability of the Antarcticans, who did not have the social, technological and economic ability to reproduce and survive their isolated surrounding and thus produced a low cultural and archaeological horizon.

In the frozen climes of the Antarctic Region could be buried Antarcticans whose DNA and physical attributes, if intact, could be literally frozen in time revealing their genetic heritage or cultural affiliation. Hair, skin and dental samples could be taken, with x-rays, isotopic and tissue tests determining age, sex, diseases and deformities, diet and familial relationships, if any. Living relatives might be traced, thus conferring some form of ‘ownership' over the bodies and remains, though not necessarily of the land. Reburial or ceremonies could be carried out in accordance to the surviving relatives' culture. Such issues are taken up in detail in Part 6.

Why are there no Antarcticans? Here I am taking an even bolder leap. The reason we have found no Antarcticans is the same as to ‘Why ET hasn't called'. Michael Shermer, author and publisher of Skeptic magazine recently analysed Earth scientists' inability to find our intergalactic neighbours. Not that Antarcticans are aliens, that's another book, but there are similarities in the search for

extraterrestrials and early Earthly civilisations, including Antarcticans. It extends from radio astronomer Frank Drake's famous 1961 equation:

N=N*f pneflfifcfL

Where: N= number of communicative civilisations N* =the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

f p =fraction of stars with planetary systems

n e =number of ecologically stable planets per system

f l =fraction of those suitable planets with life

f i =fraction of those planets with intelligent life

f c =fraction of those intelligent-life planets with communication technology

f L =fraction of lifetime of such a civilisation (Sagan 1995: 328-9).

According to Shermer's estimations N is low (Drake's estimate was ≃ 10; Sagan 1995: 331), ‘the biggest uncertainty revolves around the value of L' says Mars Society president Robert Zubrin. However, Shermer thinks that ‘this inconsistency in the estimation of N [is] perplexing', because we can use our own planet's civilisation to gauge how long other possible civilisations have survived and to see how many are out there. Using this criteria, Shermer compiled a list of about sixty civilisations ( ‘years from inception to demise or to the present') including Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Africa, India, Japan, Central and South America, modern Europe and America. Shermer found that these civilisations had lasted a combined total of 25,234 years. And using this data he had defined his own value for L (Shermer 2002: 21). Disregarding what Shermer calls a civilisation and the fact that most of them were contemporaneous, a lot of them lasted for centuries. They are all clearly defined, archaeologically marked horizons because of their longevity and great culture ecology. And herein lies the Antarctican problem. Using my own modified Drake's formula we should be able to see why finding Antarcticans is difficult. Given that the number of communicative civilisations in the Antarctic Region is unknown [for now], N in Antarctica would depend on:

1. The formation of a suitable Antarctic environment (e.g. non-glacial, sheltered, stable) 2. The number of discreet ecological areas in that environment (e.g. rivers,

mountains, valleys, caves) 3. The number of those areas with usable resources (e.g. fauna, plants, lithics, water) 4. The number of those resource-rich areas with humans (population pressures) 5. The date of arrival (c.40,000 BP to AD 1800) 6. Their communication technology (culture ecology) 7. The lifetime of such an Antarctic civilisation

I think that this modified formula could work for any area, with time- adjusted technological changes to account for intelligence and communication technology. Of course civilisations are not equations and cannot be predicted or interpreted as such, but could give archaeologists (and astronomers) a lead on what to expect. The known civilisations on Earth may have had around 25,000 years or more to evolve, but the Antarctic may have had almost double that, but the lifetime of any one culture there may have lasted only decades or a few generations, because of other factors defining ‘N'. But it does not mean that the Antarcticans were not there and archaeologists should be well prepared to re-assess their views on accepting the possibility of an Antarctican society.

Summary This chapter has ranged over a large area of topics in order to establish the criteria by which Australian and/or Fuegian groups could have migrated from their territories to the Antarctic Region, and survived. The various topics including maritime transport, clothing and shelter, hunting, fishing, ecological support, lithics, ceremony, and anatomy looked at data from Australian and Fuegians periods, assessing how each played a factor in their initial survival and how they related to Antarctic culture. Overall, I think that lithics would be the best diagnostic tool in finding and identifying the Antarcticans. They would preserve better and their typology would provide a possible date and origin of the migrants. However, caution would be advised for tools could turn out to be ecofacts and a careful screening and sampling strategy would be needed. Shelter and protection might not be such a problem, nor may tools, but coping with long, dark winters have had a tremendous, stressful effect. The environment would have prohibited the building of large monuments or the establishment of hierarchical structures and complex societies. The migrants may reveal their origins and date of arrival through their physical form and DNA. But as Dillehay states, even early skeletons from the Americas of the late Pleistocene are lacking, until the early Holocene period

10,000 BP . Either burial practices were different or the absence of bodies indicates a total lack of any migrants, an archaeological bias or destruction through natural processes. Quite possibly, the biggest obstacle to migrants to the Antarctic would have been the Southern Ocean. Australian or Fuegian canoes as we know them may not have been able to traverse so far on such an unpredictable, stormy ocean. Maybe I am doubting the stoutness of the migrants and their skills, especially Fuegian women paddlers, but the ocean-going craft, so far lacking in the archaeological record, may be the key to discovering the truth. But in finding all the answers to these data and questions, their subsequent discovery, processing, recording, and security will have to be undertaken with unprecedented care and open minds.

Raymond Burke

PART 4: TECHNOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Human-environmental interactions are the key to finding sites and evidence of early habitation in the Antarctic Region. The technologies used to reveal these low-visible relationships have to be sophisticated, yet efficient and cost-effective. The relative expertise would have to be multidisciplinary. Archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, oceanographers, botanists, geologists and geophysicists and others would have to be employed and multi-tasking would be necessary to bring down costs. But how low-tech can one be, and still be accurate? What follows is an outline of techniques to discover possible sites, artefacts, migration routes, human remains and structures.

GeopGeophysicalhysical studies Remote sensing is a cheap and effective method of assessing the buried landscape. Methods such as seismic surveying which can examine ancient coastlines, magnetometry which can discover graves, middens, hearths and structures, and aerial and satellite surveys which can detect a variety of features are all proven methods. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is especially adaptable to Antarctica since it can be used on frozen or snow covered ground. While it has a good depth gauge and can also detect buried structures, walls and foundations, this depends on the contrast to the surrounding matrix (Rapp and Hill 1998: 181-191). A 23,000-year old woolly mammoth was found preserved under 15 feet of permafrost in Taimyr, Siberia by radar imaging. A pneumatic-drill excavation was followed by a daring helicopter airlift to a laboratory for study (Highfield 1999). Radar transects in the absence of excavation, due to the sensitivity of the area or excavation laws could be used, ideally over all possible areas, but specifically over suspected sites. Radar satellites and other studies have thus far missed any tell-tale signs of a fanciful, ice-covered, Antarctic civilization even though ice and water are far more penetrable than either jungle or desert. On various missions the space shuttle has been able to find traces of cities, sites and civilization in the jungles of Cambodia (Sheridan 1998) and Guatemala, and the Sahara desert (Rapp and Hill 1998: 192). Cave studies, their formation (human or natural) and use (burial site, residence, storage, etc) could be documented by geophysical and other methods, as could the search for potential quarries and mines for a lithics industry.

Would the Antarcticans, whether in their fishing or hunting industries, have left evidence of pollutants that could be traced to determine their existence and activities? Ice cores could aid in this matter determining natural or man-made environments. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is an important archaeological tool in assessing spatial arrangements of artefacts and sites. It has a large database that can store and analyse data (Rapp and Hill 1998: 192). Storage of site maps and plans can be accompanied by data from satellites and aerial and geophysical data. Predictive models can also be used in locating suspected sites (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 84). Site catchment analysis can be used in conjunction with GIS to determine the resources of the land (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 242), with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) also used to map areas, update maps or determine unmapped areas (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 84).

Glaciology Glaciology is the study of the movement and age of glaciers. This information, including flow rate and effect of glaciers on possible past artefacts and sites could be used in the west Peninsula and some of the islands to determine when and where man could have settled. According to Campbell and Claridge, not much work has been done in this field for this location (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 307). Static and frozen sites below glacial ice would not be a possibility, for glaciers are moving objects and would have obliterated any evidence centuries or millennia ago. Any site found now, would most probably be a post-glacial development and would greatly aid in identifying the origins of the Antarcticans. Glaciers advance and retreat in stages over long timeframes. Time is a crucial factor, but glaciology can still determine past land formation processes and its affects on possible Antarctican life. Glacial surges could have caused catastrophic movements speeding up retreat (Press and Siever 1998: 239). Can glacial till and drift be searched for artefacts and sites even though they cover huge areas and could be up to 100 metres deep? The hardness of the drift dictates the age of a glacier, since it overlays the original surface with more recent deposits on top. The most recent glacial retreat was 8,000 to 15,000 years ago, evidenced by Carbon 14 dates and fossil studies (Press and Siever 1998: 252). There were interglacial periods, some of which were longer than glacial periods, with four major periods of retreat and advance over the past 100,000 years. These included interglacial periods at around 41,000, 23,000, and 19,000 years ago. It has been noted that during the ice age, Carbon dioxide levels were low, but during interglacial times they were higher. Isotopic studies, dating of glacial sediments and potassium-argon dating of volcanoes

attest to and confirm these periods (Press and Siever 1998: 252-5). As iterated in Part 3, ice ages bring eustatic changes, as much as 100-150 metres with accompanying wide continental shelves, but also a glaciated Antarctica. But an interglacial period brings better Antarctic conditions, but longer sea voyages. How can these two facts be reconciled when there may have been voyages from as far away as Australia? Maybe the underlying causes of ice ages could be studied to find this out. But there is no one agreement as to what causes ice ages. These include astronomical cycles, Carbon dioxide emissions, which cause oscillations in the atmosphere, sun variances and volcanic events (Press and Siever 1998: 255). Volcanic eruptions and their salt types and concentrations can show up in ice cores, indicating possible Carbon dioxide rises, which coincide with interglacial periods. These levels were reduced during the last ice age with steadier rises until the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1890 (Rubin 2000: 188).

Provenancing and Geofacts This discipline explores the possible sources of raw materials and can also help in studying distribution patterns, exchange mechanisms, migrations and territorial boundaries (Rapp and Hill 1998: 148). If artefacts are found in the Antarctic Region then their provenance must be known in order to confirm their origin. Antarctic artefacts would confirm that at least these regions were discovered, if not settled, and their resources used. This could be used for stone, flint or obsidian tools, though ceramics were probably not used in the Antarctic due to resources and lack of need for such utensils. Any ceramic artefacts could indicate a later import or accidental arrival via a ship-wreck. Studying the spatial distribution of artefacts is not always enough. Data could be biased, artefacts not necessarily originating from the centre of distribution or production. Components of artefacts analysed can be matched to potential raw material sources to assess their origins. Geo-chemical methods used can include X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), the more effective inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP) and Electron microprobe analysis (EMPA) to name a few (Andrefsky 2001: 42-44). Other methods are isotopic analysis, diagnostic minerals or assemblages and microfossils, since it is assumed that the unique set of features within raw materials can be found within the finished product (Rapp and Hill 1998: 134). The important factor is the chemical differences that can be detected in the raw materials. Trace elements (comprising less than 0.1 % concentration) and ultratrace studies, like neutron activation analysis and spectrography, can be used (Rice 1987: 413-5; Andrefsky 2001: 42).

The above methods analyse the elemental composition of the rocks by comparing the ratios of the elements against each other. This is accomplished by measuring the radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom after being subjected to an energy source. The result allows a determination of the type and number of atoms, and therefore the elemental composition (Andrefsky 2001: 42). Rock identification by type, can be carried out by studying the composition, texture and structures, but crucially in the Antarctic Region, geochemical techniques will ultimately determine local or imported sources. The condition of the source is also important. Alterations to the source (cryoturbic or glacial processes for example) or artefact could inhibit proper identification. The sampling techniques and areas in which to collect and analyse samples to compare with has to come after proper understanding of the geological region by studying geological maps to specify and locate specific deposits (Rapp and Hill 1998: 135-7). Provenance maps of the Antarctic Region should be constructed and used if any artefact is assumed to have originated from Antarctica. Other cultures (spatially or chronologically distinct) using the same source, their compositional and production factors may not be apparent from visual examination, thus also biasing interpretation. Analysed thin sections can be compared to geological maps, rock samples and other thin sections. On successfully finding the origins, provenancing could then help in the making of distribution maps and indicate the relationship between local, foreign and imitation artefacts, trade and economics (Orton et al., 1993: 140, 197). Drawbacks in provenancing include the disappearance of the original bed, alteration of the material in production and the high variability of the material due to erosion, deposition and re-deposition [any of which could be caused by glacial action] (Rice 1987: 417-9). Were the Chilean ‘flint tools' from the South Shetland Islands sediment core provenanced or even dated? Were they artefacts or geofacts, natural objects, which look like human-made objects (Rapp and Hill 1998: 24)? These are controversial because examples of supposed ancient flaked objects can be fractured naturally in depositional events such as in the Calico Hills, California (Rapp and Hill 1998: 19) or by falling off rock-shelters as is suspected in Pedra Furada where quartzite stones were dated to between 48,000-14,300 BP, though their formation is in question (Rapp and Hill 1998: 24; Dillehay 2000: 191-3). Frost heave, glacial movements and other tectonic, climatic or cryoturbic event could also form geofacts. Anything found in Antarctica will have to be carefully scrutinised for date, provenance and authenticity as an artefact, possibly by an independent or unbiased party and without any hysterical media publication. Only after it has been thoroughly tested can it be declared an antarctifact.

Oceanography Oceanography is a multidisciplinary study combining geology, geophysics, and geochemistry with biology, physics and meteorology (Press and Siever 1998: 261). Oceanographers use a sonar profiler that utilises emitted sound and a series of microphones to peer deep into the seabed with high definition (Jackson 1999: 21-2). Deep-towed echo sounders and side-scanning sonar are more accurate in detail. The echo sounder or depth recorder emits sound into the ocean or sea bottom and receives reflected data. The time of the delay caused by sound's travel through water determines depth, producing a bathymetric map (Press and Siever 1998: 278). This technique was used in the Black Sea when oceanographer Bill Ryan and geophysicist Walter Pitman wanted to prove their ‘Noah's Flood’ theory for peoples living in the Black Sea area at the time of the alleged flood. The sonar record revealed possible buried tells 55 metres deep where the ancient and lower coast of the Black Sea would have been (Jackson 1999: 21-2). But that was the relatively calm Black Sea. What about the churning Southern Ocean and craggy inlets of islands? As mentioned in Part 3, the American Atlantic and Pacific shorelines were wider during the last glacial maximum and early settlers could have camped on the coasts before sea levels rose to their present limits by 6,000 BP. But their early camps and settlements would not be like the tell formations of the black sea. Scattered finds, artefacts, in-filled caves and shelters may be all that is left of early American settlements. Can technology find the buried and flooded evidence of past American migrants, let alone sub-Antarctic settlers? If sites are found, then they could be mapped or recorded and dredged to collect potential samples and artefacts. Submersibles, which can use visual, photography and sampling methods could be utilised. Caves now submerged and lost due to glacial retreat and rising sea levels, and any evidence around islands may have to be searched by submersibles or infra-red searches. But would the storminess of the Southern Ocean or the rocky, treacherous coasts of the islands preclude such use of this technology? It is these ancient coastlines, now submerged, which may offer the best evidence for past Antarctic habitation. Southern Ocean current computer simulations focusing on the times mentioned in this work may also reveal more about migration routes. We could see the current’s effect on sail-less canoes, especially with women paddlers and navigators. The wind and ocean current speeds and strengths could also be assessed and combined with seasonal data. The Southern Ocean would be calmer in the summer, but stormier and no doubt darker in the winter as one drew nearer to Antarctica. Also starting and finishing positions could be plotted,

voyages setting out from various points and times maybe discovering favourable routes. What about a return route or a Southern Ocean counter-current from the Antarctic Region? Could a sail-less boat find a way back to Tierra del Fuego, or was it a one-way trip?

Summary Technology and the will to use it will be an important factor in discovering Antarctican sites. Provenancing and geofacts are two aspects in relation to any found stone or other artefacts that can then be traced and determined if humanly made. Causes of Antarctican geofacts will have to be studied and then compared with other objects. Geophysics, glaciology, oceanography, and other fields of work could also aid in uncovering and understanding the Antarctican past. But whose past is it?

Raymond Burke

PART 5: A SURVEY OF ANTARCTIC REGIONS

As stated in Part 1, the Peninsula and the sub-Antarctic Islands would be concentrated upon. These areas offer the best chances for survival even in their present polar state. Research into their current and past topography, climate and resources would be needed in order to detect and investigate potential sites.

Surveys Surveys are important as they can aid in pre-excavation and recording procedures. In the Antarctic environs, coastal surveys would be needed and on land, proposed sites could be evaluated. Aerial photography could also be carried out, accessing difficult areas and terrain, though field-walking for surface finds would be the simplest method. Where to survey? Past sea and wind patterns could be studied in conjunction with ocean current computer simulations in order to assess possible locations of landing areas and areas of hospitability. These conditions could indicate accidental or deliberate voyages, landing sites and also routes of travel between islands. Since some of the islands were formed by volcanic activity and some from plate-tectonics, some of the Antarctic Islands may be younger or older than others. Maybe some were still being formed as the Americas were being inhabited. When sea levels were lower before 6000 BP could some of the islands may have had wider, exposed shelves and raised beaches, like the American coastlines, that could have been inhabited and used for resources. If so, how can they be found and evaluated? Using geophysics, searches for natural harbours and low inlets, that existed maybe even as far back as 60,000 years ago could be initiated. Flat land, high land, ice and wind-free areas, sheltered areas whether rock shelters, caves, semi-subterranean or underground areas, naturally or humanly constructed, would all be possible landing and habitable areas. On lower ground permafrost may have hindered semi-subterranean dwelling-building. Also, past efforts by man at trying to alter the environment could be lost and swept away by winds, sea and glaciers, vanishing without a trace. Could geophysical techniques detect such ephemeral evidence? Searches for areas of resources, whether stone, wood or reed (from boats), food and water, could be carried out. And tests for possible edible plants or

crops, either naturally or humanly introduced, could be performed. This all depends on possible areas of hospitability on sheltered land or on the coast where the cold, ice and sea salt could not have corroded, eroded or contaminated materials and artefacts. Possible artefacts could be of stone, wood or bone from seals, whales, penguins etc. Detecting these artefacts could be done by flotation, sieving and geophysical techniques. Flotation could recover plant remains and species indicators relating to origin, date and past environmental conditions. Sieving could discover bone and possible flaked stone tools, while geophysics could detect boundaries and outlines of possible structures or vessels. Survival technology could also be discerned by using these techniques. What if a site was buried and preserved beneath volcanic ash? Could there be evidence of Antarctican ‘Laetoli' footprints? Footprints remain for years in normal Antarctican soils, but snow or volcanic ash could further preserve them. Tephachronology could be used, with each volcanic event distinguishable from one another by its ash's specific composition. Dating and reconstruction of the past environment could be realised (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 155). Cultural characteristics of possible travellers from cultures to Antarctic regions and possible relationships of artefactual finds could be determined if artefacts are found. Stone piles, structures, or carvings; tools for food and hunting processes, possible burial pits would be of great importance. A distinctive or early type technology-culture should be evidence of a new culture in the sub-Antarctic. What evidence of habitable areas are there in the Antarctic? Below is a brief description of the regions, with further studies to include more detailed ‘map' surveys.

Site Types Since I have utilised South American and Australian models, these being the most likely colonising cultures, I will also use these for site-typing. In South America, Dillehay describes six types of early hunter-gatherer sites, which in some cases may be applicable to the Antarctic Region. These site types are only guides, but suggestions are also given as to how they could have been used in the Antarctic.

1. Long-term base camps comprising of large, chambered caves or rock-shelters or outdoor areas (200-300 square metres in area), with favourable views, close to resources, with evidence of living areas, hearths, tool debris, and food remains. Clearly a long-term occupied site (Dillehay 2000: 81). These would have provided excellent shelter and possible have the best evidence for artefacts. But do the islands or the Peninsula contain such formations? And how old are they?

2. Short-term campsites would have held small populations so as not to exhaust already limited resources. Evidence would include a small range of expedient tools with highly varied forms to enable multiple tasks (Dillehay 2000: 81). I would say that this would be the most common site type. A family or small unit could be more mobile utilising resources before returning to a possible long-term base. Probably used in conjunction with butchering and transitory stations, opportunistic kills and other activities could have been undertaken without involving the whole population and their resources. 3. Butchering stations may be located around rockshelters, with kill areas exhibiting specific butchering tools and unused or uncarved animal remains (Dillehay 2000: 82). These may have been located near penguin rookeries and seal and bird nesting areas. 4. Transitory stations may have doubled as small campsites, perhaps seasonal, as an area to search for game and make new tools. Stone tool debris and stone tools may be found at such locations (Dillehay 2000: 82). As above, opportunistic activities may have been carried out due possibly to seasonal and resource changes (change in fauna migrations and/or births; plant growth and quarry discoveries). 5. Quarries would be important, for survival would depend on good, strong, quality tools. The type of tool debris, type of stone used and stone tools of varying types would indicate a quarry site. Some quarries may have been inhabited (maybe to protect resources or for trade)(Dillehay 2000: 82). One quarry on the Peninsula may have served a large group or groups or maybe various island quarry material was traded. Only provenancing would be able to discern Antarctic sources. 6. Localities that only appear to be sites may be created by a mixing-up of ancient and modern contexts, confusing analysis, and/or by natural or human causing re-deposition or isolated finds (Dillehay 2000: 83). In the Antarctic Region these types of sites may be caused by freeze-thaw cycles with lateral movement via glaciers or other erosional effects, producing geofacts and site-like attributes.

Investigation of SubSub----AntarcticAntarctic Islands (see fig. 19) The South Shetland Islands Only 1000km from Tierra del Fuego are the South Shetland Islands. The four main groups of this 540km-long island chain, with its 150 or so islets spans from approximately 63S to 61S - 63W to 54W (see fig. 20). They are 80 percent glaciated and cover an area of 3688 sq km, the highest point Mt. Foster (2105m) on Smith island (Rubin 2000: 260). The glaciers are now

receding after advancing 500m-700m during the LIA (Nunn 1994:183). These islands, the closest of the big island- groups to the Peninsula, were discovered by William Smith (1819), who was blown off-course in the Drake Passage. He and Bransfield surveyed them in 1820 (Rubin 2000: 260). Even though the islands now may make them seem uninhabitable, the past may have been different. The South Shetlands are regarded as uplifted islands and has surfaces ‘gently undulating and sub-horizontal areas’ above 120m and up to 290masl and platforms with ‘regular flat areas cut into bedrock’ at below 120m, these horizons defined by B.S John and D.E. Sirgden in 1971. Also ‘erosional evidence of uplift includes shore platforms, caves, notches and other features’ frequently related to sea level, but not always (Nunn 1994: 208). These are fascinating features. How big and supporting were the caves? When and how did they form and erode? Can evidence for man’s presence be found in and on these locations? Elephant Island at 55W by 61S is at the northeast end of the chain. Chinstrap penguins reside here and 2000 year-old moss with 3m-deep peat also appear. Landings are precarious (Rubin 2000: 261), possibly due to craggy and rocky shores. King George Island (5750'W to 5920'W - 6230'S to 6180'S) has less than 10% of its 1295 sq km areas free of ice. Large moss beds are present and it is home to gentoo and Adelie penguins. Upon it are stations and/or personnel from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Germany, Peru and the U.S., making the largest of the South Shetlands the unofficial capital of Antarctica (Rubin 2000: 262) (see fig. 21). Would this create problems for archaeological work with claimants demanding ownership of anything found? Greenwich Island, a little south west of King George, is the site of Yankee Harbour, a protected almost circular, 1 kilometre harbour on its southwest side. It was an anchorage point for 18th and 19th century sealers (Rubin 2000: 265). Livingston Island (6120'W to 6020'W - 6250'S to 6270'S) is the next largest island in the chain. It is also the Site of Special Interest No. 6 (according to the Antarctic Treaty) having the ‘greatest concentration of 19th century historical sites in Antarctica' (Rubin 2000: 266). Deception Island (see fig. 22) is a 12km wide broken-ring of a collapsed volcano cone, making it one of the ‘safest natural harbours in the world - despite periodic eruptions.' The entrance is through a 230m wide and windy break in the 580m tall wall in which lies a potentially hull-piercing rock just below the surface. Underground volcanic vents remind one that the volcano is dormant, not extinct and had recently erupted in 1969 and again in 1991-2

(Rubin 2000: 267), a potential beacon to ancient mariners. There are many potential areas to survey on the islands. The fact that they were close to South America (1000km) and a stone's throw away from the Peninsula, makes them the most likely target for a surveying expedition. Also areas used by early European sealers and whalers may indicate past use by Antarcticans.

The South Orkney Islands Located around 47W to 44W - 6030'S to 61S, this group has four major islands; Coronation, the largest; Signy, Powell and Laurie Islands and including the remote Inaccessible Islands (see fig. 23). Eighty-five percent glaciated and ranging over 622 sq km, the islands suffer cold westerlies, with less than 2 hours sun on an overcast day. Discovered in 1821 by sealers; gentoo, Adelie and chinstrap penguins also roost here (Rubin 2000: 271). Signy Island, even though a small 6.5km by 5km island, is an important research base for biological studies, especially plantlife (Campbell and Claridge 1987: 152; Rubin 2000: 272). These studies could form the basis from which the Antarctican diet could be determined.

South Georgia Island Discovered in 1675 by a merchant blown further south and off course while rounding Cape Horn, this island is 170km by 40km covering 3755 sq km (see fig. 24). At 38W to 3630 W - 54S to 5450'S with smaller surrounding islands, it is rugged, heavily glaciated and mountainous, the Allardyce Range forming the backbone of the island, Mt. Paget at 2934m, the highest point (Rubin 2000: 273). 18,000 years ago, temperatures in the south east Atlantic were 4ºC lower than today causing an ice cap on South Georgia, but not on the Falklands due to warmer south-flowing currents (Nunn 1994: 171). Conditions would have been hard on South Georgia then. But even today, depending on how glaciated the mountains are, even on the other islands, might there be caves or rock shelters within their rocky heights that could have been inhabited in the past? The island was heavily glaciated the furthest advance between AD 1750 to 1840, but is now receding (Nunn 1994: 182). The northeast coast is fjorded, though harbour areas (used by early whaling stations) are protected from the westerlies by the mountains. The island is cold, cloudy and windy with hardly any seasonal change (Rubin 2000: 273). The fjords, already exploited by whalers, may also have ancient coastal sites. In fact at Sandebugten there is a series of raised beaches at 2-2.5m, 5-6m, 6.5m and 9m with cliffs cut in the till denoting the original shorelines (Nunn 1994: 212). Depending on the ages of the raised beaches could the latest ones contain evidence human activity? Oceanographic and other geophysical methods

may help in locating submerged or buried sites, if not destroyed by European construction. Ferns grow on the island, which is inhabited by elephant seals, seabirds (Crossley 2000: 61), Antarctic fur seals, and macaroni and king penguins (Rubin 2000: 278).

The South Sandwich Islands Almost covered in ice, this 11-island group running in a rough north-south arc was discovered by Cook in 1775. The islands cover 310 sq km ranging approximately from 5950'S to 56S and 26W to 28W (see fig. 25) (Rubin 2000: 280). With three small, contained island groups and with three larger, individual islands strung out in this way, travel and survival between them may have been possible. But what would conditions be like? Due to their position near active converging tectonic plates, the islands are volcanic with both basalt and andesite eruptions occurring in this island group (Nunn 1994: 34). All the islands, Montagu being the largest, were formed by volcanoes a ‘relatively short time ago' and some still show volcanic activity as Larsen experienced in 1908 and scientists in 1956 when ‘three jets of glowing material shot 300m into the air' for 48 hours. 35 km off the northwest of the chain is also a submarine volcano. The volcano on Bellinghausen Island in the Southern Thule group of the South Sandwich Islands causes snowmelt and fumaroles, which helps facilitate sporadic but rich vegetation growth (Nunn 1994: 36). Though more northerly than the South Shetlands and the South Orkney Islands, the South Sandwich Islands are colder due to seawater coming from the Weddell Sea. Claimed by both Britain and Argentina, the islands also have the largest penguin colony in the world (Rubin 2000: 280). If Bellinghausen Island is not atypical in its features and depending on conditions and the timing of any possible landfalls, tools from volcanic rock, food from vegetation (if edible) and penguins could have resulted in small groups surviving on the islands. Even though these islands may be somewhat out of the way and cover a small area, currents could have led ancient voyagers to the islands. Being the furthest east from Antarctica, it may have been difficult to navigate against the currents, unless sail technology was in use. Again, geophysical and/or computer simulations of ocean currents could determine this.

On some of the sub-Antarctic islands, perennial tussock grassland (mostly Poa spp.) occurs in the absence of grazing animals. Exposed soil could result in landscape changes if the grass disappeared due to animals or climate change (Nunn 1994: 313). If sturdier plants or even trees had existed on the sub- Antarctic Islands, like Île Amsterdam with its existing Phylica arborea , glacial periods and the LCO/LIA transition may have degraded conditions so far

as to destroy traces of these trees, leaving behind smaller, but sturdier shrubs and grasses. What is the state of botanical preservation and studies on these islands? And will any clues give an insight to the presence of man upon their shores?

Investigation of Antarctic Peninsula and its islandsislands Hundreds of off-shore islands surround the Peninsula providing fertile areas for birds, seals, fish and penguin breeding. It was ‘extensively explored' by scientists and sealers, major west-side islands include Joinville, the largest of the three islands at the tip of the Peninsula (Rubin 2000: 295), D'Urville; mountainous Anvers; Brabant, Wiencke, Adelaide, and Alexander islands. The Peninsula is broken down into areas starting with Palmerland at the base with Graham Land, Davis Coast and Trinity Peninsula progressing toward the tip (see fig. 26). Figure 27 shows that the east coast Peninsula is glaciated with the cold Weddell Sea hazardous to navigate due to pack ice. The Larsen Ice Shelf snakes along the coast, but at the eastern tip of the Peninsula are James Ross Island, Vega and Snow Hill Islands and enigmatic Seymour Island (Rubin 2000: 302). Twenty kilometres by three kilometres by nine kilometres, barren, rocky, ice and snow-free Seymour Island sits in the lee of mountainous Snow Hill and James Ross Islands. Described by palaeontologist William Zinsmeister as ‘Antarctica's Rosetta Stone' Seymour Island is rich with exposed rocks and fossils. Zinsmeister found the first evidence of mammals living in Antarctica, proving that marsupials migrated from North America to Australia via Antarctica and also studied the KT (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary which recorded the ‘extinction event' 65 million years ago in which many species, most notably the dinosaurs, died (Rubin 2000: 304-5). But what did Larsen discover on Seymour Island? Barbeiro states that Larsen found human-made, clay artefacts. Other records state that he found petrified wood (Rubin 2000: 185), but trees had disappeared on Antarctica by some 2.5 million years ago (Crossley 2000: 12), so a younger date could possibly indicate a human manufactured object. But petrified wood is dispersed across Antarctica. The only other place recent wood may have come from in the Antarctic environs is Île Amsterdam, a small, unglaciated 85 sq km volcanic rock. The phylica arborea grew on this French island until sealers' fires destroyed most of them in the early 19th century (Rubin 2000: 249-250). Could this have been the state of other islands in the region if once in a temperate climate? Or even a source of wood for fires, boats and artefacts? Like Easter Island's trees, used for transporting their sacred stone statues, were the trees of some sub-Antarctic islands exhausted before, during or after a

climate change with the evidence now hidden by glacial activity? Seymour Island is unique, but its very exposed surfaced should have left any sign of a colony mostly intact. As with Zinsmeister's early marsupials, did humans use Antarctica as a migration route in later times? And could the bones and remains of extinct animals have been used as real ‘fossil fuel'? A more lengthy study on possible survey areas and investigations into topographic maps are needed. These data could then maybe determine possible areas of archaeological interest sites and features.

Protecting the environment Environmental assessments will have to be made concerning excavation and work. Ozone depletion, degradation and preservation of material/data could affect climatic conditions. With most of the sub-Antarctic islands and parts of the Peninsula being used by sealers and whalers for their operations, could they have damaged or contaminated potential ancient sites and features? What about excavation effects of flora, fauna, ice, air and water? The protection of soils is especially needed, for their stability can be affected by man's growing work and influence on Antarctica, whether on Antarctica itself or through pollutants in the air or sea or from the depletion of the ozone layer. Future glacial history and soils studies may be able to help us interpret the past with more accuracy than is possible now. Change in Antarctica is slow and some damaging effects irreversible, so care must be taken. To that effect, excavation might not be possible unless deemed positively necessary and vital to the understanding and advancement of man's possible history in Antarctica

Summary Surveying the Peninsula and the sub-Antarctic Islands will be a major task demanding accurate and rigorous work. Even though they have been mapped, detailed surveys for possible sites have not been probably carried out, to my knowledge. Archaeologists could use specific methods to search for the tell-tale signs of Antarctican life. These will be the key in discovering and describing the Antarctican world. But we have to try and tease the data out. Prioritising, I would choose the Peninsula first, since it would offer the best choices for shelter and resources, then the four major island groups would be next, with ocean currents probably deciding the order of study regarding migration routes.

Raymond Burke

PART 6: THE LAW AND EXCAVATION IN ANTARCTICA

The Antarctic Treaty, and other organisations, like the Antarctic Heritage Trust and Heritage Antarctica have been set up to guarantee Antarctica's continued state of relative, unpolluted isolation. As shown below, this involves scientific work of a nature that would not be a destructive influence on the environment, but archaeology is a destructive element. How can one balance the search for Antarcticans without contravening international treaties and laws?

The law and excavation Which part of Antarctica could archaeologists excavate, if any? Whose section or claim would have potential sites and artefacts? If on the Peninsula, its islands and the sub-Antarctic Islands, figure 18 shows that these are claimed by Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom. Australia also lays claim to large tracts of Antarctica and as will be seen, may be able to claim more. A complex web of agreements and permits to excavate may be the only outcome. How can permission to enter and work in Antarctica be gained? The Antarctic Treaty (1961) is an internationally recognised agreement stating that:

‘It is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue to be used for ever for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord’ (Crossley 2000: 87).

The Treaty's 14 Articles, to date, and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection (Madrid Protocol) protect Antarctica from misuse and damage (Crossley 2000: 87). Presumably, any archaeological work, under the Madrid Protocol, would necessitate an assessment of environmental impact, much as with other site work around the world, though Antarctica's environment is more sensitive. Scientific studies and research take precedence, Article VII also proclaiming that ‘all members shall give notice of expeditions...' (Crossley 2000: 86). Further, the Treaty only covers land and ice shelves to 60 South (Crossley 2000: 86), which includes the South Shetland and South Orkney Islands, but not the South Georgia or Sandwich Islands, which lie slightly north of the Antarctic Treaty Boundary. Which individual countries hold these territories? And would they allow surveys and excavations?

The Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR) set up in 1957 coordinates international research. Annual reports are submitted to SCAR by countries, with SCAR also coordinating a bi-annual, 2-week international meeting discussing progress and future planning (Rubin 2000: 174). SCAR would be an organisation that would be able to assess archaeologists' or claimant(s) data or claims concerning potential Antarctic inhabitants. If a site, artefacts or remains were found, could Antarctic claimants, through SCAR, waive parts of the Madrid Protocol to permit excavation for the benefit of mankind? Could unilateral action be taken on a particular claimants territory, if they suspected that their territory held a site of historical interest? The legal implications could be huge. Specific archaeological procedures and Antarctic Treaty laws will have to be examined in closer detail.

The law and legal possession Would legal possession of finds depend on which part of Antarctica it is found or will genetic studies decide ownership? What chance of this happening in Antarctica? The United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile's claims overlap. No one owns those claims or Antarctica, so who would receive ownership of artefacts or bodies if they were to be found. Would DNA links over-ride claimant territory? If any artefacts or remains are found in Antarctica how would they be preserved in the archaeological record, and later studied and handled? Also what other factors can contrive to make post-excavation activities worrisome? Who would have the right to own and study the remains? How long could bodies reasonably be able to survive in that condition? Potentially 40,000-60,000 years could have passed before Antarctican remains are found. What condition would they lie in? And as discussed later what affects on modern society would their discovery bring? With possible early populations arriving in Antarctica and evolving in isolation into a new or separate species ( Homo antarcticus? ) which cultural group would they belong to? If Australians claim them, would they invoke cultural laws prohibiting tests in order to bury their ancestors? Can they claim ancestral rights? And through that ancestral claim, could they then claim that part of Antarctica where the remains were found? And would that claim be on behalf of the Aborigines or the Australian government?

Past and future lessons In order to assess the future of Antarctic finds and their possession, we will have to look at some of the more important and controversial legal cases from the past or are still ongoing.

Kennewick Man A chance discovery of the so-called Kennewick Man may have important implications on not just Native Americans, but also on the point of ownership. Dr. James Chatters, an anthropologist, was handed a skull by the county police, found near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers in Washington State. They wanted to discover the presumed victim ’s identity. In due course and with other bones found by Chatters, he realized that the skull was at least 9000 years old and most astonishingly that it was not of Native American origin. It seemed to have Caucasian features (Radford 1998: 4-8). Later, Chatters attempted to do DNA tests on the bones to find out their true ethnic identity, but was ordered to stop at the behest of the court which in turn had been lobbied by representatives of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. This alliance of tribes wanted to rebury the bones as one of their own ancestors. To them, Chatters had stolen the bones from ancient burial grounds, as many archaeologists had done before him, thereby desecrating their rites. To the Native Americans, anything as old as Kennewick Man could only be one of their ancestors. Some, such as Chief Yellowbird, believed that Native Americans had always been there (despite archaeological evidence to the contrary) and had not migrated from other lands. ‘Humans and animals change with time ’, Chief Yellowbird says (Radford 1998: 5, 11). But others saw Kennewick Man differently. On hearing of the apparent ancient Caucasian in North America, an obscure group called the Asatru Folk Assembly, a ‘traditional European religion ’ claimed Kennewick Man as one of their own, causing more uproar. And in circumstances not fully understood, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who has jurisdiction over the Columbia River, which is on Federal land, buried the site of Kennewick Man citing conservation work on the riverbank to protect it from erosion (Radford 1998: 10, 20). No more artefacts could thus be retrieved. So not only was Chatters prohibited from carrying out DNA tests; the site had been buried, the remaining bones later locked away by court order, in a museum; a counter law-suit had been filed by protesting archaeologists to retrieve the bones which they felt they had the right to conduct research upon and Native Americans were as set against archaeologists as never before. All of this over a contentious set of bones. Currently, the remains of Kennewick Man are in a vault under guard. And though a judge deemed that limited tests were allowed (Radford 1998: 20) legalities continue to prolong this political, scientific and cultural Pandora ’s box . This was a matter of conflicting cultures provoking deep emotions that reached as far back as America’s historic past. Early Native Americans had been systematically wiped-out by European settlers, until some treaties had

brought some semblance of peace. But with Western science continually delving into Indian affairs, Native Americans feel that their past is being eroded away with Kennewick Man being the latest effort to undermine their rights and identity and assert a European primacy in the Americas. But now, Native Americans have more rights and exercise them in order to protect their heritage. Extremely conscious of their political clout and growing American guild over their past actions, empowered Native Americans can have casinos on their land (illegal in most states) and some tribes can hunt whales (illegal in most countries). Native Americans see any attempt by archaeologists to probe their remote past as an attempt to undermine their culture and religious beliefs, though the opposite is true. Kennewick Man could enhance and advance Native American history. But what if Kennewick Man was really a Caucasian? What would that say about Native Americans and their right to be called the First Americans? In my opinion, Kennewick Man in no way undermines Native Americans. There are older remains and sites than Kennewick Man from Bluefish Cave, Yukon, Canada; Meadowcroft, Pennsylvania; Pedra Furada, Brazil and Monte Verde, Chile, among others attesting to Indian primacy. All Kennewick Man could prove is the possible diversity of later migrations indicating migration routed, trade and inter-cultural relationships. The fact also remains that Kennewick Man was exposed naturally and not by archaeologists infringing upon Native American religious beliefs. But still Native Americans feel threatened and in response they have taken political action to ensure stability and reassurance in their cultural heritage. The Native Americans were allowed to stop all further tests and to rebury the bones. If ever there was an archaeological question that needed to be answered, it was Kennewick Man. But uncivilised and negative political action in the past by European colonisers has led to politically-corrected, yet archaeologically- negative action in the present. Some more data has been produced revealing that Kennewick Man ’s skull resembled Polynesians ’, especially from Easter Island, or maybe even an Ainu from Japan. These groups may have been the first colonisers of Australia 60,000 years ago who then migrated to the Americas. Kennewick Man may also be the first sign of a previous war between ‘indigenous ’ inhabitants and colonisers, for in his thighbone was a stone projectile, which had helped to date him to around 7,400 BC (Mithen 2003: 227). Was he the victim of an ancient tribal atrocity? The issue of Kennewick Man remains very much alive today.

Otzi the Iceman Possibly more famous that Kennewick Man is Otzi. Otzi, the Iceman or Similaun man was found by a German couple in 1991 on the Similaun glacier in the Otztaler Alps, at 3200 metres. He is the‘world's oldest fully preserved human body' at 3,500 years old. He had been partially thawed out of the ice (and part excavated by jackhammer) by sun-absorbing dust and found with his ancient everyday clothing and over 70 objects and equipment (Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 62-3). Claimed by Austria and Italy (Italy winning out by 90 metres) he is still being studied as to clues of the past environment and his own life. The cost of moving Otzi to Italy was £600,000, involving a helicopter, and Austrian and Italian police. Extreme nationalists and Austrian scientists and priests who say Otzi deserves a proper burial have protested against Italian claims of ownership, which will display Otzi in South Tyrol's Bolzano, a museum, after being studied at Innsbruck University. Otzi in a darkened room within a bullet-proof-glass, refrigerated unit, will be guarded by a private security firm with alarms (Hoffer 1998; Mitchison 1998: 14-5). It has cost a total of £4 million to analyse and conserve the Ice Man including cold storage units, over the past 6 years [since 1991] (Hoffer 1998). But other costs are also mounting. According to some sources, the German discoverers of Otzi are claiming for‘half of any profits made from his discovery' offers that were not to his nor his lawyers liking (Mitchison 1998: 17). The latest bout of legal wrangling between the Italians and the discoverers saw a £30,000 offer also rejected. The discoverers are apparently only entitled to one quarter of the total value of Otzi, even though the couple were declared legal finders of Otzi (Leidig 2003). It seems that this will continue for some time. So what is the price of Otzi? Is not his existence to the world, let alone archaeology, priceless? What price ‘Antarctic Man’? Could she/he be ransomed to the world before any work was began to find out any information? It could an impossible situation. So what does the future hold for Antarctican artefacts and/or Antarctican Otzi remains? Can we allow this to happen to ‘antartifacts ' if discovered? And who will have the right to display and claim them? Part 6 discusses these and other issues which can be contentious at most times. With Otzi, he was initially handed over to Austrian authorities, which began to study him, before he was found to be 90-metres inside the Italian border and thus turned over to Italy. Of course neither Italy nor Austria or even Europe existed at that time, as political units, so why was Italy accorded ownership? Otzi's DNA could reveal that he belonged to a society outside of either claimant country (though it has now been proved that he was ‘Italian ’). Could that modern country then claim Otzi, or is it finder's keepers?

For now, Luzia is still Brazilian. But what if it transpires that she did indeed belong to an Afro-Australian group? Would she be whisked off to Australia or fought over by differing groups?

Legal possession of Antarctic finds Who would own any finds in Antarctica? When non artefacts are found, like meteorites, does the discovering nation keep them for study, or are they the possession of an Antarctic scientific body that allows the nation to hold that object on trust while studying it? If that is the case, then will it be different for human remains and artefacts? As seen with Kennewick Man and Otzi, human remains and their age and location can bring up tremendous out-welling of emotions in cultural, political, legal and scientific circles. How would these groups respond to an Antarctican find, whose origins indicated a migration from their lands?

Repercussions of finds There is no doubting that the rewriting of history will be required if positive proof is found that the Antarctic Region had been inhabited. It would also demonstrate that man could adapt to one of the most isolated and inhospitable places possible. However, an archaeological gold-rush must be avoided to protect the sensitive Antarctic environment and claimants must formulate some form of plan to ease legal ramifications over ownership.

Tourism Any finds, evidence and claims of possession will be seriously contested and tested in the future. Apart from climate change, the degradation and erosion of landmasses, rising sea levels, non-native species invasions and other environmental changes, further man-made changes through rapidly increasing tourists will challenge cultural and archaeological sites. Giant cruise liners, holding up to 3,800 passengers, are being lined up as the next tourist experience. This new ‘commercial exploitation ’ could seriously erode Antarctic sensitive ecosystems with its polluting influences. In the past 15 years, tourist numbers to the Antarctic have increased from 15,000 in 2001 to over 30,000 per year and if not checked could top over 100,000 within the decade (Edwards 2006: 16; Squires 2006). There is also talk of flying to Antarctica, with Australia creating a 2-mile long ice runway near their Casey Research station (Squires 2006). Contamination of sites and areas protected by Treaty; selective, accidental or intentional damage to sites and areas; theft and sale of suspected or unknown artefacts; fraudulent acts of excavation and other forms of illegal activities could seriously harm heritage studies, present and future

archaeological or geological studies, and claims of ownership. Unrestrained tourism should be restricted, set to a level decided upon by treaty. Antarctica is not a cash cow to be milked for financial gain by sea and airliner companies. Their actions could damage the very object of their financial interest, accelerate the ruin of natural states and degrade or complicate any legitimate excavation and claims of possession. More measures and laws would be needed to prevent ecological disasters from human encroachment and also provisional work should begin to devise laws on the prospect of archaeological finds, not covered in any existing treaties or laws

Summary It is a shame that archaeology is not set along the lines of the Antarctic Treaty where international cooperation and scientific sharing transcends national claims and rivalry. It may be an idealistic notion, but archaeology under the auspices of the Antarctic Treaty could nullify national claims when artefacts or remains are found in the Antarctic Region, the find being in the best interest of world history and science. Kennewick Man, Otzi, Luzia and other potential finds do not augur well on the future of archaeology, when dealing with political and cultural factions. Discoveries risk being politicised to favour not the finders, nor the ancestral groups they may belong to, but the modern claimant groups (country, political or cultural groups, etc). It could take years to settle the Kennewick legal battle with his ancestry still not resolved. In the future, such legal battles over law and ownership could cost the human race a valuable piece of its ancient history.

Raymond Burke

CONCLUSION

Reconciling present data The evidence has been laid out. Despite being a perceived isolated environment, the Antarctic Region could have been home to a society that survived the southern wilderness, after being borne there by natural ocean currents. In the past, the climate may have been more amenable affording sheltered protection in places now submerged, buried or glaciated. And sustenance may have come from the fauna and flora from land, sea and air. In examining the data from Part 2, I think that the Afro-Australians (c. 60,000 to 40,000 years ago) were capable of travelling across the Southern Ocean discovering the Antarctic Islands and maybe even the Peninsula. Though no evidence at all of artefacts or remains, the first wave to inhabit Australia may have moved on due to environmental changes and the need for resources, migrating to new lands, including Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and possible Brazil. I believe that what made Antarctica habitable in the first place, namely a short interglacial period up to 6,000 BP, changed, forcing a migration northward. These first migrants in the far southwest and south of South America, in Patagonia, were inhabited during this migration and that further explorations north, maybe to Monte Verde and Pedra Furada were inhabited by these people prior to the southward migration of the Mongoloids. These isolated, but old sites, have artefacts that have to be assessed as to whether they resemble other cultural artefacts or are South American in origin and nature or a distinct form from a culture that knew no others. This can indicate whether it is a local sub-culture or related to the Afro-Australians. The hunt for the first Americans may help us to understand migration routes and temporal and spatial sequences. We have to determine if Antarctica was a part of or separate from the American migration and colonisation. If it was separate, then in all likelihood, Antarctica was inhabited by Afro-Australians and probably before the Americas were colonised. The habitation of the Antarctic Region may have been during the interglacial around 40,000 years ago. It may have been sporadic or seasonal, glacial action removing all artefactual evidence. The Antarctican culture may have only inhabited one island group and not spread out, thus limiting their archaeological visibility. Further, I would conjecture a non-Afro-Australian, Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego culture as another inhabitant of the Antarctic Region. They would have

motive to move if threatened from the north by other groups also scarce in megafauna and resources. They would be more acclimatised to the climate and the sea would be skilled in boat and fishing technology and are of course the closest to the Antarctic. This would have been a relatively late habitation coming after 13,000 BC when Tierra del Fuego was still glaciated and probably after 7,000 BC when the Mongoloids entered the region. While the Polynesians discovered New Zealand, it is probably unlikely that they discovered Antarctica. They once were and still are a sea-faring culture, but may have been too tropical to adapt and survive. Some cultural traditions and artefacts found in New Zealand do resemble Polynesian precedents, but not in Monte Verde or Pedra Furada. The Polynesians are latecomers to the scene and their cultural identity would have been evident. Not considered were possible voyages from Africa. There is no evidence of ocean-going traditions or depictions of boats in myth or art as compared to the Polynesians, South Americans or Aborigines. Plus the open-ocean distance is the greatest from Antarctica. Part 3 examined the archaeological record. As discussed phenomenology, paleoecology and antarctic archaeology could potentially aid archaeologists in discovering the hows and whys of Antarctican life. With artefacts, including structures, crafts and other manufactured objects these could be tested in an Antarctican environment to assess their potential as antarctifacts. The identity of the Antarcticans may be divined from the date of their arrival, their origin and their form, whether robust archaic or modern gracile, if these terms describe species and not gender. The two possibilities involve early Homo erectus types versus a later post-ice-age, South American population (whether Mongoloid or non-Mongoloid). The low archaeological visibility would be credited to their non-progressive state, living a varied but simple life. All this work will have to be carried out with the utmost care as Antarctica's environment is unique and protected. The role of geophysics, oceanography, glaciology and others can also play their part in discovering potential sites. Provenancing could not only source artefacts, but also be used to detect modern artefacts, fakes and geofacts. Part 5 envisioned the surveying of the Antarctic environs. This will be a major and painstaking task that could be made easier and cost-effective by multitasking duties amongst the scientific team. Potential sites could be assessed from maps, radar imaging, satellites and geophysics, even if there are historic and/or sensitive areas that would be declared off limits. Barbeiro's theory is interesting, but Seymour Island has been raked over by paleontologists who surely would have detected signs of non-dinosaur (e.g. human) activities and habitations on an ice-free island. Larsen may have

discovered geofacts, but until the Norwegian's notes are studied and material published by Barbeiro, we will have to wait and wonder. What does the law hold on the subject? Otzi is the main precedent concerning corporeal ownership, but North American Indian and Australian Aboriginal burial rights and laws may be looked at as potential templates for any future Antarctican finds and remains. Finder's keepers or DNA testing will vie for prominence among claimant states even though the finds would have consequences for world archaeology and history. Finally, one day, Antarctica will yield its secrets. And we will find that the Antarctic Region was not a lonely, unlived-in place, but a home to inhabitants who would have earned their place in history. If Antarctica was inhabited, it was by courageous people. But it is a tragedy that they were not there to greet the first Europeans to discover their home.

Raymond Burke

Bibliography

Adler, R. 2006. The First Americans. NewScientist . April 8, 42-46.

Andrefsky Jr., W. 2001. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches To Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Argod, R. 2004. Out of Antarctica: Reflections on the Origin of Peoples . London: Richmond Editions.

Benson, E.P. & de la Fuente, B. (eds.). 1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington: National Gallery of Art; catalogue n os 25 & 67.

Blakeslee, S. 2006. Ancient Crash, Epic Wave. The New York Times . Tuesday November 14.

Borrero, L.A. 1997. The Origins of Ethnographic Subsistence Patterns in Fuego- Patagonia. In: Patagonia - Natural History, Prehistory and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth . McEwan, C., Borrero, L.A., and Prieto, A. (eds.) London: British Museum Press, 60-81.

Borrero, L.A. & McEwan, C. 1997. The Peopling of Patagonia. In:. Patagonia - Natural History, Prehistory and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth. McEwan, C., Borrero, L.A., and Prieto, A. (eds.) London: British Museum Press, 32-45.

Brothwell, D.R. 1981. Digging Up Bones. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Campbell, I.B. & Claridge, G.G.C. 1987. Antarctica: Soils, Weathering Processes and Environment. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Carneiro, R.L. 1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science . 163 , 733-8.

Chapman, A. 1997. The Great Ceremonies of the Selk’nam and the Yamana. In: Patagonia - Natural History, Prehistory and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth. McEwan, C., Borrero, L.A., and Prieto, A. (eds.) London: British Museum Press, 82-109.

Chapman, P. 1998. Ruins May Show Incas Beat Maoris To New Zealand. The Daily Telegraph ; Thursday, June 11.

Clover, C. 2006. Trawler ‘poses threat to Antarctic life ’. The Daily Telegraph . 25 September.

Commisso, R.G. & Nelson, D.E. 2006. Modern Plant δ15 N values reflect ancient human activity. Journal of Archaeological Science . Vol 33( 888), 1167-1176.

Crossley, L. 2000. Explore Antarctica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed . New York: Viking.

Dillehay, T.D. 2000. The Settlement Of The Americas. New York: Basic Books.

Edwards, R. 2006. Alien species at the gates of Antarctica. NewScientist . 1 July, 2006: 16.

Erlich, H.A. Mack, S.J., Bergstrom, T., & Gyllensten, U.B. 1997. HLA Class II Alleles in Amerindian Populations: Implications for the Evolution of HLA Polymorphism and the Colonization of the Americas. Hereditas (127) (1-2), 19- 24.

Fagan, B. 2004. The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization . London: Granta Books.

Fernández-Armesto, F. 2000. Civilizations. London: MacMillan.

Feynman, R.P. 2000. The Role of Science Culture in Modern Society. In: J. Robbins (ed.) The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. London: Allen Lane – The Penguin Press, 97-115.

Flem-Ath, R & Flem-Ath, R. 1995. When The Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis . London: BCA.

Gamble, C. 1993. Timewalkers: The Prehistory of Global Colonization. London: Penguin.

Gleick, J. 1997. Chaos: Making a New Science . London: Minerva.

Gould, S.J. 2001. Bully For Brontosaurus. London: Vintage, 109.

Gould, S.J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory . London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 39.

Gowlett, J.A.J. 1994. Ascent To Civilization. London: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Grice, E. 2002. Explorer from China who ‘beat Columbus to America’. The Daily Telegraph; March 4.

Hapgood, C. 1996. Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. Kempton, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press.

Harsent, B. (ed.), 1999. Ancient Voices: The Hunt for the First Americans. Manchester: BSS. Originally broadcast on BBC2, September, 1999.

Hecht, J. 2003. Long, narrow skulls reveal the colonisation of America. New Scientist . 6 September: 17.

Heyerdahl, T. 2000. In The Footsteps of Adam. London: Little, Brown & Company.

Highfield, R. 1999. Frozen body of mammoth to be used in clone study. The Daily Telegraph. Friday, October 22.

Highfield, R. 2001. Humans ‘hunted giant animals to extinction.' The Daily Telegraph, Friday, June 8.

Highfield, R. 2002a. Search for living relatives of Inca child sacrifices. The Daily Telegraph, Monday, May 13.

Highfield, R. 2002b. Vinland map debunked as 1920s fake . The Daily Telegraph; July 31.

Hince, B. 2000. The Antarctic Dictionary . Collingwood, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Hitt, J. 2004. When Words Fail. The Sunday Telegraph magazine . 21 November, 34-39.

Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hoffer, P. 1998. Ice Man is moved to new home in Italy . The Daily Telegraph. Saturday, January 17.

Humble, K. 2001. Ever Wondered? Extremes -Life on the Edge: Surviving Antarctica. Originally broadcast June 23, 2001.

Jackson, M. (ed.). The Great Flood. Manchester: BSS. Originally broadcast on BBC2, January 1999.

Lamb, C. 1999. Amazonian Indians ‘Were Not The First Brazilians' . The Sunday Telegraph; May 16.

Leidig, M. 2003. ‘Ice man’ cash rejected . The Daily Telegraph; November 14.

Lomborg, B. 2001. The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29.

Martin, P.S. 1996. Megafaunal Extinction. In B.M. Fagan (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Archaeology . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 432-434.

Maynard, R. 1999. Ship may put Portuguese 250 years ahead of Cook . The Times; August 31.

McCulloch, R.D., et al. 1997. The Glacial and Post-Glacial Environmental History of Fuego-Patagonia. In: Patagonia - Natural History, Prehistory and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth. McEwan, C., Borrero, L.A., and Prieto, A. (eds.) London: British Museum Press, 12-31.

McLeod, L. (ed.) 2002. Savage Planet: Cape Horn . Manchester: Granada, 16-17.

Meltzer, D.J. 1996. Americas, First Settlement of the (Settlement of the Americas after 12,000 BC). In B.M. Fagan (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Archaeology . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24-26.

Mena, F. 1997. Middle to Late Holocene Adaptations in Patagonia. In: Patagonia - Natural History, Prehistory and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth. McEwan, C., Borrero, L.A., and Prieto, A. (eds.) London: British Museum Press, 46-59.

Menzies, G. 2002. 1421 – The Year China Discovered the World. London: Bantam Press.

Mitchison, A. 1998. Frozen Assets. The Sunday Telegraph Magazine. March 22, 14-18.

Mithen, S. 2003. After the Ice . London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

Nunn, P.D. 1994. Oceanic Islands . Oxford: Blackwell.

Orton, C. et al. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parfit, M. December 2000. Dawn of Humans: Hunt For The First Americans. National Geographic , 40-67.

Pasternak, C. 2003. Quest: The Essence of Humanity. Chichester: Wiley.

Press, F. and Siever, R. 1986. Earth. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 292.

Pyne. S.J. 2003. The Ice . London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Radford, T. 1998. Equniox: Homicide in Kennewick . London: Channel 4 Television. Originally broadcast on Channel 4, October 1998.

Rapp Jr, G. & Hill, C. 1998. Geoarchaeology. London: Yale University Press.

Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. 1996. Archaeology- Theories, Methods and Practice . London: Thames and Hudson.

Rennie, D. 1999. China and US linked by ancient writing . Daily Telegraph; August 25.

Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis - A Sourcebook. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1999. Arctic Archaeology. Introduction: Human Occupation of the Arctic. In: World Archaeology. Vol. 30 (3): 349-353.

Rubin, J. 2000. Lonely Planet: Antarctica. London: Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd.

Sagan, C. 1995. Cosmos . London: Abacus. 328-332.

Schobinger, J. 1994. The First Americans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Sheridan, M. 1998. Space radar finds lost civilisation. The Sunday Times. February 22.

Shermer, M. August 2002. Why ET Hasn’t Called. Scientific American . 287 :2, 21.

Sieveking, P. 1998. Aborigines Who Went On Global Walkabout . The Sunday Telegraph; August 30.

Sieveking, P. 1999. Ancient Chinese king ‘led trip to America’. The Sunday Telegraph; December 12.

Squires, N. 2006. Liner takes tourist hordes to Antarctica. The Daily Telegraph. 5 September.

Stringer, C. and McKie, R. 1996. African Exodus. London: Pimlico.

Trachtenberg, E.A., Erlich, H.A., Rickards, O., Destefano, G.F., & Klitz, W. 1995. HLA class II Linkage Disequilibrium and Haplotype Evolution in the Cayapa Indians of Ecuador. American Journal of Human Genetics ( 575757 ), 415-424.

Webster, D. 1975. Warfare and the Evolution of the State: A Reconsideration. American Antiquity . 404040 :4, 464-470.

Whipple, D. 2003. Histories: Alas, Poor Warrah. NewScientist . 20/27 December 2003 – 3 January 2004: 80-1.

TV Documentaries Riddle of the Cone Shaped Skulls. Ancient Murder Mysteries . Channel 5, August, 26, 2002.

WWWebsitesWebsites

Collins, A, 2000. Antarctican Antiquity, Earthquest News. Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer. www.andrewcollins.net. Accessed 27.04.00

Vostok's Secrets on Radar. www.antarctican.com/pages/recnews/rn_stories/Vostok_141100.htn. Accessed 25.01.01

Webster, G. 2005. The Lagoa Santa (or ‘Luzia ’) Group (Minas Gerais, Brasil). www.andaman.org/Book/Chapter54/text52.htm Accessed 10.10.06