By Martha Henriques
22 October 2018
In 30 years’ time, the treaty that maintains harmony in Antarctica will
be up for review – could archaeological discoveries there influence the
continent’s future?
In 1985, a unique skull was discovered lying on Yamana Beach at Cape
Shirreff in Antarctica’s South Shetland Islands. It belonged to an
indigenous woman from southern Chile in her early 20s, thought to have
died between 1819 and 1825. It was the oldest known human remains ever
found in Antarctica.
The location of the discovered skull was
unexpected. It was found at a beach camp made by sealers in the early
19th Century near remnants of her femur bone, yet female sealers were
unheard of at the time. There are no surviving documents explaining how
or why a young woman came to be in Antarctica during this era. Now, at
nearly 200 years old, the skull is thought to align with the beginning
of the first known landings on Antarctica.
The Yamana Beach skull was a significant find – and not just for
archaeological reasons. In 30 years’ time, bones such as these may come
into play in territorial claims for this pristine wilderness. Nations
are quietly – and sometimes not so quietly – preparing to stake their
rights as the owners of swathes of the nearly uninhabitable land.
"Lots
of people just don't understand that there's a darker side to
Antarctica," says Klaus Dodds, professor of geopolitics at Royal
Holloway University of London. "What we're seeing is great power
politics play out in a space that a lot of people think of as just
frozen wastes."
The Antarctic Treaty System was first signed in 1959 but, in 1998 a
protocol on environmental protection was added. It states that
Antarctica is to be a "natural reserve, devoted to peace and science,"
and prohibits all activities relating to Antarctic mineral resources,
except as is necessary for scientific research. But this is not set in
stone forever.
In 2048 – 50 years after the protocol was created –
this part of the treaty could come under review. That is the date when
the prohibition on mining and resource extraction could – and it's a big
could – be altered or done away with.
"The reason 2048 looms large is because if certain countries feel
that the prohibition on mineral exploitation is no longer to be
respected, people worry that the whole thing could unravel," says Dodds.
"Environmental protection is one of the key headlines of the treaty."
Seven
nations laid overlapping claims on Antarctic land when the treaty was
adopted: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and
the UK. The treaty held all these claims in place and prohibited any new
ones from being established. The treaty also puts any expansions to
territorial claims to Antarctica on hold – officially.
"The
claimant states, in a sense, keep their claims in a box, if you like,
with a lid on it. But that box will never be thrown away," says Jill
Barrett, an international law consultant and visiting reader in
international law at Queen Mary University of London.
Many nations, however, are engaging in 'doublethink' about this part
of the agreement, says Dodds. "The big players, usually China and
Russia, are thinking about this particular episode around 2048 and
planning ahead."
As a result, many countries are sending feelers
out to Antarctica in a number of ways, such as financing scientific
research, historical investigation, and building research bases far and
wide around the continent. "It's a very clear message to the wider
world: we're in the whole space," says Dodds.
Archaeology is one of the most important activities, says Michael
Pearson, an Antarctic heritage consultant and former deputy executive
director of the Australian Heritage Commission. "It establishes an
interest, if not a stake, in future discussions about territorial claims
or commercial exploitation."
While archaeological finds like the
discovery of the Yamana Beach skull carry no legal weight – the woman
was more likely to have been a sealer than an official – they might just
challenge the known timeline of the continent’s history. If Chile can
demonstrate that it had people living in Antarctica earlier than other
nations staking land claims, then they have a stronger hand in
negotiations.
Archaeological discoveries can also boost political support for a
case back home. "When remains or objects are found in the ice, I could
see straight away it would inflate territorial nationalism," says Dodds.
"Archaeology has always been really important for national politics."
Other
events, such as historic shipwrecks, could play a similar role as the
Yamana skull. In 1819, the Spanish frigate San Telmo was wrecked in the
Drake Passage, which separates the tip of Chile from the Antarctic
Peninsula. Archaeologists have searched the Antarctic islands for signs
of whether any crew made it alive to the shore.
"Shipwreck remains
were found there washed up on the South Shetlands," says Pearson.
"Quite possibly some of the crew survived on the floating wreckage." If
there were survivors, they would have beaten the British to be the first
in Antarctica.
The upside of all this attention is that a single nation’s investment
in archaeology can reveal artefacts and remains that can enlighten the
whole world – discoveries that might never otherwise have been found.
"The underlying nationalistic ambitions of countries, be they overtly
expressed or covert motivations, can be beneficial," says Pearson. "They
provide funding and logistical support to carry out archaeological
research, which is otherwise very hard to get."
For the Chilean
woman whose skull was found on Yamana Beach, the most likely conclusion
is that she was caught up somehow in a sealing mission to Antarctica.
She may have drowned or died of exposure on the shore. But her bones
remain among the most significant archaeological discoveries ever made
in Antarctica. And they are now part of a much bigger picture of soft
power and national pride, in the context of the political long-game of
laying claim to the frozen continent.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario