The Independent Website That Asks The Awkward Questions
A Change Of Use
The Use Of The Huts Is Being Changed
The use of the huts is being changed from the haunts of explorers to
money making machines for heritage professionals and tourist companies.
Whether this matters or not depends on what you think the historic
Antarctic huts are about.
For most people who have ever had the privilege of visiting the huts, they are a sublime connection to the greatest epics in human exploration history. They are unmediated time capsules; and the damage since they were ‘unfrozen’ by the New Zealanders 50 years ago has been limited, until now. The huts stood as they were left by great men from our history and, as such, were astonishingly moving, for here, you could almost touch them. It is this sublime power of the huts that has inspired widespread international good will for the campaign to save the huts. Many figures of considerable repute have spoken in support:
It is, however, a simple and brutal fact, that no matter what the expertise, no matter how many scientific laboratories, no matter what the technology employed, nor how venerable those that appeal for their support may be; intervention in the fabric of the huts and their relics destroys their very essence as a time capsule. They will no longer be ‘untouched’.
Time capsules are by definition unmediated and untouched. The essence of the huts, which everyone wishes to see secured, cannot be so secured under the current Heritage Management Plans which call for radical intervention in the fabric of the huts. Indeed, the exhortations to support these plans by appealing to the fact that the huts should be preserved as time capsules (they should) end up being mis-leading, mis-placed and faintly ludicrous (because they will not be).
There is no doubt that the Antarctic Heritage Trusts have consulted and employed an impressive array of international expertise in developing these plans. However, surely, one should always be suspicious of any enterprise where the experts giving advice upon which important decisions are made are the same companies and individuals that profit from its execution. Of course, the advice was ‘peer reviewed’ - but peer review means reviewed by someone else in the same business of making money from conservation architecture - not someone in the business of asking fundamental questions of the process itself. Ask a particular set of experts a particular set of questions and you will get a particular set of answers. No serious attempt appears to have been made to think outside of the industry norm. Indeed the Trust explicitly states that the option chosen for the huts, radical intervention, was chosen in part
For most people who have ever had the privilege of visiting the huts, they are a sublime connection to the greatest epics in human exploration history. They are unmediated time capsules; and the damage since they were ‘unfrozen’ by the New Zealanders 50 years ago has been limited, until now. The huts stood as they were left by great men from our history and, as such, were astonishingly moving, for here, you could almost touch them. It is this sublime power of the huts that has inspired widespread international good will for the campaign to save the huts. Many figures of considerable repute have spoken in support:
“Scott’s hut is a quite extraordinary historical relic. Untouched, and almost the same as it was in 1912. It’s a monument to the great age of heroic exploration, and it would be a scandal if Britain failed to provide the money to make sure it is protected.” (Sir David Attenborough)
“No event in human history has a testament as vivid as the exploits of the great Antarctic explorers. For their huts and their contents still survived complete and intact deep frozen on the edge of the great southern continent… I had the privilege of visiting the huts, and seeing and feeling something of their atmosphere; it was a remarkable and moving experience. These places speak to us directly from nearly a century ago. Today the huts are in the care of the Antarctic Heritage Trust, who are dedicated to ensure that future generations can see, understand, and gain inspiration from these extraordinary places. It’s imperative that we support the work of the Trust, ensuring that the right science is available, the right conservation expertise, and not least the money to secure these huts for all time.” (Sir Neil Cossons, President, Royal Geographical Society)
It is, however, a simple and brutal fact, that no matter what the expertise, no matter how many scientific laboratories, no matter what the technology employed, nor how venerable those that appeal for their support may be; intervention in the fabric of the huts and their relics destroys their very essence as a time capsule. They will no longer be ‘untouched’.
Time capsules are by definition unmediated and untouched. The essence of the huts, which everyone wishes to see secured, cannot be so secured under the current Heritage Management Plans which call for radical intervention in the fabric of the huts. Indeed, the exhortations to support these plans by appealing to the fact that the huts should be preserved as time capsules (they should) end up being mis-leading, mis-placed and faintly ludicrous (because they will not be).
There is no doubt that the Antarctic Heritage Trusts have consulted and employed an impressive array of international expertise in developing these plans. However, surely, one should always be suspicious of any enterprise where the experts giving advice upon which important decisions are made are the same companies and individuals that profit from its execution. Of course, the advice was ‘peer reviewed’ - but peer review means reviewed by someone else in the same business of making money from conservation architecture - not someone in the business of asking fundamental questions of the process itself. Ask a particular set of experts a particular set of questions and you will get a particular set of answers. No serious attempt appears to have been made to think outside of the industry norm. Indeed the Trust explicitly states that the option chosen for the huts, radical intervention, was chosen in part
“…[to] bring the proposed work in line with the techniques used in building conservation work elsewhere in the world…” (Cape Evans Conservation Plan, 2004 p161)
In other words, to standardise the conservation of the huts to international industry norms.
The problem is that none of these techniques, none of the international norms, are designed for unique time capsules. The reason is simple: there are almost none outside of the polar regions, so their techniques are designed to intervene in the fabrics of more conventional historic buildings.
In most cases, this is simply not an issue. Historic buildings, such as a Cathedral, have an ongoing use, which is to be a Cathedral. Parts can be replaced, repaired or removed as necessity requires, without affecting it being an historic Cathedral. We talk about Westminster Abbey being founded by King Alfred, no-one expects or pretends that every stone was put there by him or his workmen. This is also true of most ships, where ongoing use means that they have undergone many refits. This is simply the process of history - and replacing, repairing, replicating and restoring these sort of buildings are the triumph of modern conservation architecture.
The issue becomes slightly trickier when ships or buildings are taken out of commission and their use then becomes the use of the museum. There has been a complex debate about Cutty Sark, particularly in light of the recent fire. However, here the restoration is based on the perfectly sound principle that the original fabric should be preserved, or it would no longer be the 'Cutty Sark'. As the Chairman of the Cutty Sark Trust stated: "we would end up with a replica rather than a restoration", crucially, no fabric that had ever sailed the South China Seas, which is what it means to have been the Cutty Sark. Here, the techniques of the conservation of an historic object were taken not to include replication but preservation.
However, none of these techniques can be applied to a time capsule without destroying its authenticity as a time capsule. The Antarctic huts are unique precisely because they were ‘frozen in time’ and taken out of the normal processes of human history. The buildings had no use other than to be frozen in time. Uniquely in the world, perhaps, the Ross Sea Huts are only important because of who physically put them there, meaning that what is important about the buildings and their contents are their provenance. They were put there by the expeditions of Captain Scott, Sir Ernest Shackleton or Carsten Borchgrevinck.
That is no longer true. Hut structures and relics have been removed, conserved and replaced. Some have been replicated. Some will be moved to make the huts ‘more authentic’. So increasing proportions of the huts and their relics have been put there by the Antarctic Heritage Trust, not by the historic expeditions. The Ross Sea huts have become mediated environments. Soon, not a single aspect of the huts will remain untouched - and the sublime connection to the great explorers will be destroyed. The reason for the preservation of the Antarctic huts in situ. is now virtually gone, as they are no longer time capsules.
The Ross Sea Huts are being turned from the sublime into the ridiculous; and their main use now is becoming that of an expensive playground for money-making heritage professionals and tourist companies; they are no longer the abandoned haunts of our great explorers.
You can even watch this process online.