IMHICIHU   13380
INSTITUTO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO DE HISTORIA Y CIENCIAS HUMANAS
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
capítulos de libros
Título:
“No man’s land”, Landscape Archaeology in South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
Autor/es:
ANDRÈS ZARANKIN; MARÍA XIMENA SENATORE; MELISA A. SALERNO
Libro:
South American Landscape Archaeology
Editorial:
British Archaeological Reports
Referencias:
Lugar: Oxford; Año: 2009;
Resumen:
Places refer to culturally specific ways of perceiving, representing and living at specific spaces (Thomas 1993; Hirsch 1995). Places are associated with particular meanings and values which provide them with dynamic identities along time (Rose 1995). In this work we discuss the transformation of some regions of Antarctica (mainly South Shetland Islands) in a set of interconnected ‘places’. For this reason, we analyze the strategies modern society frequently used to ‘tame’ this space, keeping it under a specific logic of knowledge and power. Antarctica was the last continent to be discovered by Western civilization at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century (Miers 1920; Martin 1940; Broun 1974). In general, historical sources described Antarctica as an ‘empty’ or an ‘uninhabited’ territory (in other words, a ‘non-cultural’ space). At the same time, they portrayed it as a region absolutely controlled by ‘natural forces’ (including the harshness of weather and the abundance of maritime resources) (Salerno et al. 2008). Almost from the beginning, Antarctica caught the attention of several capitalist companies which needed oil and skins to supply a growing world market (Stackpole 1955; Fitte 1962, 1974; Pinochet de la Barra 1992; Berguño 1993a, 1993b). Sealers –the first occupants of the continent– faced great difficulties in exploring and exploiting this hostile and unfamiliar space. As Deleuze points out (1990), capitalism is the only system which needs to expand its own limits in order to survive. As a consequence, it always tries to incorporate new spaces, resources and people. The study of this process of accumulation proves to be useful in discussing some of the strategies used by capitalism to achieve its goals and objectives. Archaeology is usually defined as the study of social life through the analysis of materiality (including artifacts and constructions, as well as landscapes and bodies). There is a direct relationship among power systems, social practices and the things surrounding us. Material conditions of existence play an active and variable role in the definition of social relationships. Material conditions do not only reflect society. On the contrary, they can also shape it (Hodder 1982, 1994; Beaudry et al. 1991). Taking these circumstances into account, it is worthwhile to mention that the multiple expressions of material life ‘are manipulated by social actors in maintaining stability and producing changes in the rules and norms governing everyday social relations’ (Johnson 1996:6). Space is fundamental in the establishment of social practices, as long as its materiality influences –and is, in turn, influenced by– people’s actions (Delle 1998). Without a single doubt, the acquisition of daily routines depends on the ‘in-corporation’ (sensu Warnier 2001) of the surrounding space (Thomas 1993; Tilley 1994; Bruck 1998, 2005; Acuto 2005). From this point of view, it is possible to understand the multiple ways in which the space connects us with social order –including its principles of interaction, privacy, liberty and the division of labor (Gilchrist 1994). Here, the key point is that ‘the meaning of any spatial order is not intrinsic, but must be invoked through practice’ (Moore 1986:6). The analysis of socially constituted space (or spatiality – Soja 1989, 1996) represents an interesting tool to discuss how certain social practices were created, maintained and transformed in specific material contexts (Bender 1993; Barrett 1988). ‘Culture landscapes’ comprise a collection of places created by human action (Lefebvre 1991; Viñao Frago y Escolano 1998; Zarankin 2002). Which practices shaped Antarctic cultural landscapes? Which actions were encouraged (or discouraged) by their materiality? Which were their meanings? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article.