Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T00:14:43.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mawson's Antarctic huts and tourism: a case for on-site preservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Janet Hughes
Janet Hughes
Affiliation:
Institute for Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several Arctic and Antarctic historic sites have now been extensively excavated and some, such as the Scott and Shackleton huts in the Ross Dependency of Antarctica, have been restored and opened to visitors. The huts of Mawson's Australian Antarctic Expedition 1911–1914, the sole expedition site of the historic age in Australian Antarctic Territory, have become a tourist attraction and the subject of controversy. One view favours bringing the main hut back to Australia for display in a museum, on the grounds that the hut is deteriorating and at present inaccessible to the Australian people: repatriation would preserve the hut and enable it to be viewed by a greater number of visitors. An alternative is to preserve the hut on site by covering it with a dome or re-cladding, replacing the timbers which have been seriously eroded, and retaining the site (but not at present the hut interior) as a tourist feature. The author argues in favour of preservation on site, retaining as much of the original fabric of the huts as possible, and proposes the formation of an informal network to exchange information among other researchers studying polar historic sites.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 28 , Issue 164 , January 1992 , pp. 37 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clark, L. and Wisharte, E. 1991. History or rubbish? A study of Wilkes Station. Historic Environment 8 (182): 25–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Dersarkissian, M. and Goodberry, M. 1980. Experiments with non-toxic anti-fungal agents. Studies in Conservation, 25(1): 28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine, A. B. 1988. The 1903 Swedish expedition hut on Pau let Island, Antarctica. Polar Record 24 (149): 133–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrowfield, D. L. 1985. The effects of wind on some Antarctic historic huts. Fram 1 (2): 470–86.Google Scholar
Harrowfield, D. L. 1990. Conservation and management of historic sites in the Ross Dependency. Proceedings of the Antarctica 150 Scientific Perspectives-Policy Futures Conference, 8 September 1990. University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. 1989. Tourism in Antarctica. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. D. 1988. The problems of preservation in a polar climate — the conservation of Sir Douglas Mawson's hut at Commonwealth Bay, Antarctica. Australian Institute forthe Conservation of Cultural Material Bulletin 14 (4): 1–32Google Scholar
Janes, R. R. 1982. The preservation and ethnohistory of a frozen historic site in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 35(3): 358–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, C.J., Banhidi, Z.G. and Albertsson, A.C. 1987. Cold tolerant (psychrotrophic) moulds and blue stain fungi from softwood in Sweden. Growth rates in relation to pH and temperature. Nordic Journal of Botany, 1 (7): 97–106.Google Scholar
Madigan, C.T. 1929. Meteorology: tabulated and reduced records of the Cape Denison station, Adelie Land. Scientific Reports Series B Volume IV Meteorology. Australian Antarctic Expedition 1911–14Google Scholar
McGowan, A. 1988. Historical archaeology at Cape Dennison, Commonwealth Bay, Antarctica. Polar Record 24 (149): 101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N. A. 1990. Archaeological techniques and technology on Ross Island, Antarctica. Polar Record 26 (159): 257–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar