Keywords

Introduction

A typology is a scheme for classifying and ordering the world. As such, it implies a form of knowledge by which any given reality is categorized and represented. However, typological schemes do not limit themselves to classifying and ordering just physical objects. People, stories, events, and processes can all be ordered and classified according to typological schemes that correspond to specific logics, explicit or otherwise. Our initial research aims to understand how the history of Antarctica is structured in the official and dominant discourses. We begin with the idea that the “typical cultural strategy of dominant actors and institutions is not to establish uniformity, but it seeks to organize all difference” (Sewell 1999, p. 56). We then center our attention on the organization of these differences and use frameworks of interpretation that allow us to analyze the production and allocation of the classifications and exclusions that results in the creation of the master narratives of Antarctica .

In archaeology , typologies are generally used to classify and order collections of objects according to perceived similarities and differences. The use of typological classifications as an analytical tool has been widely utilized within archaeological practices. However, the production per se of some typologies was undertaken, without the explicit aim of problem solving. Our concerns regarding the indiscriminate use of typologies within historical archaeology of the 1990s were expressed in a short paper entitled “Un clavo es un clavo.” Limitaciones de los enfoques esencialistas en arqueologia (Senatore and Zarankin 1996). This publication was written in a context of debate within Argentinian historical archaeology , where a significant portion of academic production was oriented to presenting object classifications. In it we also analyzed the implications of assuming that true or real categories can be discovered, in that such assumptions present a universal nature for the classifications, conditioning, and circumscribing the interpretation of material culture. At the time, we thought it was important to challenge the thinking underlying typological classifications, proposing analytical alternatives, according to specific problems and contexts.

In this case, we focus on the relationship between typological thought and the construction of official histories or master narratives (Johnson 1999). We understand that classifications and exclusions structure a way of looking at the past which is accepted as true, rarely questioned and assumed as representative of a whole. In this work we discuss the role of narratives and of archaeological materials in the construction of the master narratives about Antarctica. At the same time, we propose to challenge forms of typological thought that obscures plurality and presents a homogeneous past. Our perspective proposes, within archaeology, to make explicit the artificial nature of categorizations and established orderings, generating new analytical proposals and forms of knowledge. We maintain that, through the analysis of material culture, it is possible to question and to reconstruct the official history, offering alternative pasts and histories (Funari 1999). This challenge implies also the inclusion of new actors or protagonists, which are the subdued groups made invisible in the official history of Antarctica.

Antarctica: Narratives as “a” or “the” Mode of Knowledge

The Antarctica was the last continent to be incorporated to the space dominated by modernity. Its official discovery, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, marks the beginning of a history that presents certain particularities, not only in its content, but also in the way that it is usually told. Some versions of this history are more extensively distributed and known then others, as well as being more widely accepted. We understand that recurrences—in form and in content—construct and structure the master narratives of Antarctica . They reinforce the definition and the classification of aspects, moments, events, and processes within this history , the selection of certain elements over others and an ordering that gives it meaning. In other words, the narratives do not limit themselves to what is told or to the manner of telling. Instead, they are a form of conceptualizing history. What is told and how it is told “create” one (the) history. As archaeologists, we must ask: what is the role of archaeological material in the construction and reproduction of this history?

In this chapter, we discuss how narrative constitutes a mode of knowledge of Antarctica’s past and we present archaeology as a space of rupture regarding the master narratives of Antarctic history. To do this, we first identified the master narratives which produce and reproduce the dominant histories of Antarctica, through its written and material forms. Secondly, we present archaeological evidence of the invisible histories of Antarctica. We understand that in historical archaeology … we walk in a uniquely dangerous space of the human past, a space between often very powerful master narratives of cultural and social identity and much smaller, stranger, potentially subversive narratives of archaeological material (Johnson 1999, p. 34).

Archaeological practice offers a reimagining of the past, often calling for a revision of the master narratives rather than being dominated by them.

The concept of narrative is an interesting and controversial starting point for a discussion. Can the various discursive formations, labeled narratives in diverse fields be seen as the same sort of things? (Kreiswirth 2000). Narratives are discursive formations which have been understood as representations of a sequence of events. They have been defined from either a key concept of narrativity or from its use (Rudrum 2005). The theoretical conceptualization of narratives has been much discussed (Scholes et al. 1968; Mink 1970; White 1987; Ricoeur 1996, 1999, among others). Its form and content have been analyzed; its themes have been problematized, either as forms of fiction or as reality, as well as other possibilities. In historical archaeology, narratives have been evaluated from different points of view (Beaudry 2005; Johnson 1996, 1999; Wilkie 2006, and others). Regarding this, we believe that narratives present a compartmentalization of knowledge and a specific form of knowing.

In the case of Antarctica, narratives are institutionalized as “the” way of knowing the past of the white continent. The stories which are constructed are presented as exclusive and natural, in a way they are surrounded by insufficiency and without questioning. Thus, we understand that the master narratives regarding Antarctica are discursive formations that represent a specific version of the continent’s history, which operate in written and material dimensions. We expand on these ideas in the following sections.

Narratives: The Written Dimension

In order to explore master narratives of the past in Antarctica we have studied some of the most widely spread versions of the Antarctic history. Therefore, we have focused on the ways the history of Antarctica has been structured by bibliography in the course of time. That is to say we identify recurrences in the way stories are told, as well as emphasis in mentioning some facts above others or in omitting some others altogether.

Visible Stories of Exploration

The history of Antarctica starts around 1820 with the discovery of the South Shetland Islands—not forgetting to mention Captain Cook’s voyages as an important antecedent. All in all, the discovery appears as something controversial and hazardous over which there is no full agreement. There are different versions of the event of the discovery. The most widely spread versions associate discovery to an isolated self-contained event occurred by chance.

From 1820 onwards, Antarctica was explored by those who are now considered famous explorers such as Capt. Edward Bransfield (sent by the British Royal Navy to determine if the new land was part of a continent or a group of islands) and Capt. Thaddeus von Bellinghausen (who commanded Russia’s first government sponsored Antarctic expedition). Exploration campaigns organized by different governments continued up to around 1840 charting the Antarctic geography and landscapes. We can mention Capt. Jules Dumont D’Urville from France, the American, Capt. Charles Wilkes and the British, Capt. James Clark Ross. Then, there appears a gap or silence lasting 50 years (from 1840 to 1890) nevertheless, the presence of sealers and whalers extends—on and off—during the whole of the nineteenth century with an uncertain starting date for either activity.

It is said that in 1890 after half a century of neglect, interest in Antarctica was revived. The 1890s marked the beginning of the “Heroic Age,” a period of extensive Antarctic exploration sponsored by scientific societies after the resolution adopted in the Sixth International Geographical Congress (London, 1895) sixteen exploring expeditions from nine different countries visited the continent. It was a period of innovation and hardship in an extremely hostile, scarcely-known environment. Only to mention some, we can say that different parts of the Antarctic Peninsula and the islands of the Scotia Arc were explored by Adrien de Gerlache (1897–1898) from Belgium, the British Southern Cross Expedition led by Carsten E. Borchgrevink, and the Swedish South Polar Expedition under Otto Nordenskjöld (1901–1904). There was also the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition led by William S. Bruce (1902–1904), two French Antarctic Expeditions led by Jean Baptiste Charcot (1903–1905 and 1908–1910), the German South Polar Expedition (1901–1903) by Erich von Drygalski and the Australasian Antarctic Expedition by Douglas Mawson (1911–1914), Nobu Shirase and the Japanese Antarctic Expedition (1910–1912), Wilhelm Filchner and the second German Antarctic Expedition (1911–1912).

The early twentieth century was a time of great volume and quality of charts and scientific observations. This period was characterized by long inland journeys and several expeditions—Robert F. Scott and The National Antarctic Expedition (1901–1904), Ernest H. Shackleton and the British Antarctic Expedition (1907–1909)—the main objective of which was reaching the South Pole. Symbolically, the arrival at the South Pole by the Norwegian Roald Amundsen (The Norwegian Antarctic Expedition 1910–1912) and the British Capt. Robert Falcon Scott (The British Antarctic Expedition 1910–1913) and The Imperial Transantarctic Expedition (1914–1917) of Ernst Shackelton (1917–1922) mark the end of the “Heroic Age.”

Invisible Stories of Exploitation

At the beginning of nineteenth century explorers’ descriptions of the Antarctic seas aroused other interests linked to the exploitation of the resources in the Southern lands and sea. Their reports of great quantities of seals and whales in those high latitudes immediately attracted other characters to the making of the Antarctic history . We are talking about the sealers whose presence in Antarctica during the nineteenth century is contemporary to that of the well-known explorers and even prior to theirs. However, the widely spread versions of the history of Antarctica do not refer to it. Only very few of these new characters are known by their full names. Most of them are just anonymous men representing the fast and wild expansion of the capitalist system.

The most widely spread versions of the history of Antarctica focus their attention on the “Heroic Age;” nevertheless, it is important to say here that 1890 is also considered as the starting point of the industrial whaling exploitation in Antarctica when Norwegian and Scottish whaling firms sent ships (1892–1893) to investigate the possibilities of whaling around the Antarctic Peninsula. This marked the beginning of a new period of exploitation—industrial whaling—which included the settlement of factories in Antarctica. The data officially registered, mention imposing figures as regards the whales hunted and the facilities displayed in Antarctica, that is: floating factories, shore factories, factory ships, and catchers from 1906 to 1930. Such a project meant hundreds of men involved in the making of thousands of individual stories taking place in the Antarctic landscapes in the early twentieth century, which are scarcely mentioned in the history of Antarctica, that talk about the voyages of explorers taking place at the same time.

Master narratives of Antarctica appear as sequences of events related to well-known characters at precise dates. Such events do not appear within the frame of any process but as isolated self-contained facts. It is a story of heroes, dates, and events. Our analyses suggest there is a conceptualization of Antarctic history in terms of exploration versus exploitation. Stories associated with exploration definitely play the leading role whereas those related to the exploitation of sea resources are subdued or simply omitted. This approach gives no opportunity to the insertion of those other stories in which there are no well-known characters, no precise dates, or no memorable events: that is to say the stories of sealers and whalers which form part of the process of incorporating this region to the modern world.

Narratives: The Material Dimension

Antarctica’s cultural heritage is a unique testimony to the human presence on the last continent to be discovered and incorporated into the modern world. The international nature of the Antarctic territory leads to unique scenarios when determining what aspects of its history are to be celebrated. All nations that are signatories of the Antarctic Treaty have a voice when selecting which elements of the cultural heritage should be conserved and which can be left to the mercy of time and the environment. Its conservation is made in the name of humanity.

In the 1970s there awakes an awareness of the need for preserving historical sites and measures are taken in this sense. “The need to protect historic sites and monuments became apparent as the number of expeditions to the Antarctic increased.” At the Seventh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Wellington (1972) it was agreed that a list of historic sites and monuments be created. So far 84 sites have been identified. All of them are monuments—human artifacts rather than areas—and many of them are in close proximity to scientific stations. Historic sites and monuments which have been included in the list may not be damaged, removed, or destroyed. Successive Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings have developed guidelines to ensure that the process for designating historic sites and monuments under the Antarctic Treaty fully complies with the objective of identifying, protecting, and preserving the historic and cultural values of Antarctica.

The 2009 guideline established that,

Parties who wish to nominate a particular historic site and/or monument should address in the proposal one or more of the following: (a) a particular event of importance in the history of science or exploration of Antarctica occurred at the place; (b) a particular association with a person who played an important role in the history of science or exploration in Antarctica; (c) a particular association with a notable feat of endurance or achievement; (d) be representative of, or forming part of, some wide-ranging activity that has been important in the development and knowledge of Antarctica; (e) bear particular technical, historical, cultural, or architectural value in its materials, design, or method of construction; (f) have the potential, through study, to reveal information or to educate people about significant human activities in Antarctica ; (g) bear symbolic or commemorative value for people of many nations.

Visible Historic Sites as Heritage

Now then, “what is the result of the process of designation of historical sites in Antarctica?” We have wondered what these sites commemorate and which stories they preserve. In order to answer these questions we analyzed the list or sites designated up to now and we drew a time-line distributing these sites according to the dates mentioned. The number of sites designated has varied in the course of time; at present there are 84 in the list—even if five of these have been withdrawn for different reasons.

For the purpose of our analysis we focused on the first 100 years of the history of Antarctica and we assessed the 35 historical sites which were designated to commemorate the period of time extending from 1820 to 1920. We observed a clearly distinctive representation of the different moments; and there appeared a great emphasis placed on the early twentieth century (Fig. 1). Out of the 35 sites, 30 commemorate events that took place during the “Heroic Age.” Only 5 of the 35 commemorate previous exploratory expeditions which took place during the nineteenth century. None of these sites are related or even mention the sealers’ presence and only two refer to whalers’ activities during all that period. One of them commemorates Henryk Bull and Capt. Leonard Kristensen’s whaling expedition on board the Antarctic in 1895 and the other one the Whaling Station in Deception Island. This site also commemorates the longest period of settlement on Antarctic lands which was from 1912 to 1931.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Designated Antarctic historic sites and monuments by dates. The light ones commemorate events linked to Antarctic Exploration and the dark ones linked to Antarctic Exploitation (whaling)

Full size image

We highlighted three results of our analysis which are relevant to our interest. First the overrepresentation of the sites related to the explorations taking place during the “Heroic Age” when compared to events and processes occurring in other periods of time. Second, the precision in dates, characters, and events taking place at those precise places designated as historical sites or monuments . And the absolute silence about the presence of sealers and whalers.

We have also wondered what role both material remains and historical narratives play in the preservation of the Antarctic memory . The grounds for assessing the significance of sites for their designation are taken from written information, especially from explorer’s accounts, detailing their Antarctic experiences. These accounts have been the main source of information in reconstructing the historic sites as “time capsules”. However, there exist discrepancies between what is written and the archaeological record, and in this way “the problematic relations between public and private memory, and between history and fantasy, in the construction of both an individual and a collective past” are expressed (Suleiman 2004, p. 76).

The sites designated preserve a history of Antarctica which feeds back on its most widely spread or known versions. Thus, the idea of a history of heroes, events, and dates becomes stronger. And in it there is no place for anonymous whalers and sealers who produced no relevant events at not definite dates. It is interesting to point out that in the last guideline, items—d, e, and f—open a door to the designation as historical sites or monuments of the places where material remains of whalers or sealers’ activities were found. However, for the time being no example of those items appears on the list.

Historical Archaeology in South Shetlands

Archaeological research focused on the presence of nineteenth century sealers in the South Shetland Islands has been developing for decades and a program of systematic survey of the islands continues (Stehberg and Nilo 1983; Lewis and Simpson 1987; Stehberg and Cabeza 1987; Martín 1996; Stehberg and Lucero 1995a, b; Lucero and Stehberg 1996; Stehberg and Lucero 1996, Senatore and Zarankin 1999; Zarankin and Senatore 1996, 2000, 2005, 2007; Stehberg 2003, 2004; Pearson and Stehberg 2006; Pearson et al. 2008, 2010; Stehberg et al. 2008; Senatore et al. 2008; Zarankin et al. 2011). There are different projects with specific goals and interests. However, archeologists coming from Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Australia are working together by sharing information.

Our research started in 1995. From that moment on, we developed several fieldwork seasons in the islands. We concentrated our efforts on a specific area: Byers Peninsula on Livingston Island. The Island was frequently visited by sealers during the nineteenth century, and—at least until today—it has shown the highest concentrations of sealing camps in the South Shetlands (Fig. 2). Byers Peninsula covers an area of 72 km2, and an extension of 80 km from east to west and 3–14 km from north to south. Archaeological activities on Byers Peninsula combined the survey of the area and the excavation of specific locations.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Map showing the archaeological sites identified so far in the South Shetland Islands. a Cape Shirreff in Livingston Island, b Desolation Island, c Peninsula Byers in Livingston Island and Rugged Island

Full size image

We are interested in discussing the first attempts of the modern world to incorporate a hostile region, completely unknown before the nineteenth century, to its economic and political boundaries. Our perspective is not centered in studying a particular event. On the contrary, we are devoted to the study of a historical process. We worked at a macro level, seeking to understand the nationalist and capitalist network of interests reaching the South Shetlands at the beginning of the century. The project also includes the study of the incorporation of the region at a micro level: that is to say by studying the life of the people who occupied and exploited Antarctica for the first time.

The study of the sealers’ presence is not limited to the study of one particular site of “apparent historical relevance.” Only in Byers Peninsula more than 20 archaeological sites were reported. None of them have any single outstanding historical relevance. All of them give information about a history that is still being built. Narratives cannot be used to determine the relevance or assess a particular site or to take the measures for its further preservation. Therefore, narratives do not have a univocal or determining role in the study of the sites and remains left by sealers. Archaeological and historical sources have provided information on different aspects of sealers’ first steps in the South Shetlands.

As from the archaeological tasks carried out in Byers Peninsula the characteristics of the various sealing camps were studied. The results of such surveys allowed the bringing forward of some tendencies. Sealers’ camps are formed by stonefenced areas in the shape of enclosures: that is spaces limited by piled stone walls and also by other structures in various shapes. In all cases they were built using rocks or whale bones. In general, rock formations or caves available on the shore and providing natural shelter were used as part of the structure (Fig. 3). The shapes and sizes of these spaces are varied.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Archaeological site Playa Sur 1 belonging to nineteenth century sealers’ camps in Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetlands

Full size image

The enclosures seem to respond to a prompt building for which it was not necessary to transport any elements. Different questions such as function, segmentation, and structuring guided the analysis of the inner space. Likewise, the inner organization of the structures, as well as the use of the surrounding space and the reoccupation or reutilization of the shelters were studied.

According to our theoretical and methodological stand the material world is placed in the center of our research. Therefore, it is assumed that it is possible to learn about the life of people if we study their material world and we interpret the role it played in the definition of social relationships. Archaeological surveys and excavations have shown that a large number of sealing sites were established in the region. There was variation in the size and spatial organization of these places, as well as in the number of people disembarked and in the social organization of the groups. Once on land, sealers created their own living spaces where most of their everyday activities took place. The sealing strategy implies alternate cohabitation of large groups on board or of smaller groups in camps on land. It is interesting to reflect on the changes in socialization as expeditions went by. Archaeological excavations showed evidence that groups remained isolated from one another—some on land and some on board. Sealing structures were primarily created with local resources. Therefore, it is clear that sealing companies did not provide workers with the elements necessary to build the shelters. Planning of the sealing strategy was associated with the reoccupation of the same shelters or the idea of leaving elements behind to be used in further campaigns. It is possible that sealing strategies changed throughout the nineteenth century. The reconstruction of sealers’ daily practices became finally relevant.

Final Words

In this chapter, we have discussed the relationship between typological thinking and the construction of the official history or of master narratives for the Antarctica. A classification and exclusion scheme has structured the way of looking at the white continent’s past. This way of looking at the past has been accepted as the truth and assumed as a representative of everything and everyone. We hope that we have demonstrated that, for Antarctica , the narratives constitute “the” mode of knowledge of its past. To this end, we identified the master narratives which in their written and material dimensions produce and reproduce the visible history of Antarctica. We presented archaeology as a point of rupture for the thought schemes that are implicit in the master narratives of Antarctic history.

Our analyses suggest that the master narratives of Antarctic past present a conceptualization of Antarctic history , in terms of exploration versus exploitation. Written and material dimensions of the master narratives offer a version of the past. The histories related to scientific exploration are “preserved,” by celebrating specific events, dates, personalities, and specific locations; whereas stories associated with the exploitation of Antarctic resources have been, and are still, silenced and forgotten. It is worth mentioning that many of the stories of sealers and whalers carry no specific protagonists, exact dates, or apparent “historical relevance” to be commemorated. Even if there are numerous material remains widely dispersed, they are scarcely considered in the conservation agenda for Antarctic heritage .

The schemes presented in the official history of Antarctica make homogeneous what is heterogeneous and they hide away pluralities. Historical archaeology is seen here as a different standpoint, focused on the study of processes, working with the material remains of ordinary people and their everyday life, incorporating new characters and invisible stories into the history of Antarctica. Through those stories, we may begin to overcome the authoritarianism of the typological classifications in the official history. A new past is open and a new present waits.