1

The four Antarctic huts in the Ross Sea Dependency built during the Heroic Age of Antarctic exploration (1899–1917) contain some 15000 artifacts. A program for their conservation and long-term care has been developed over the last six years, culminating in the placement of a conservation laboratory at New Zealand’s Scott Base and the employ-ment of conservators to ‘winter over’ in the Antarctic while conserving the artifacts.

There is arguably no more challenging current conservation project, requiring coordination and planning of equipment, supplies, transport of artifacts from the huts to Scott Base, employment of contract conservators and development of cold climate conservation treatment methodologies.

Heavily international in focus, to date conservators from Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Canada and Germany have wintered over. This paper reports on a ‘work in progress’, as the project is not due to be completed until at least 2012. It discusses the broader issue of how the site is being interpreted and the role conservators are playing in this process.

INTRODUCTIONThe process of material conservation is one that is most com-monly undertaken in controlled conditions in a conservation laboratory, with ready access to materials and specialist equip-ment, should the need arise. Conservation projects through necessity sometimes occur on site, and there is arguably no more challenging place to undertake on-site work than Antarctica. Three months of complete darkness in midwinter, compounded with six months of no physical access to the outside world, create unique demands on conservators. Add to this the need to develop treatment methodologies that are going to survive in an extremely harsh environment, and the challenges of the historic huts of the Antarctica conservation program become clear. Finally, the question as to why time, money and resources should be expended on conservation in such a remote location requires integration into the overall project planning so as to show how the conserved huts are going to be made accessible.

A preliminary review of this project began in 2007 [1]. This paper discusses the conservation of the some 15000 artifacts in the four historic huts of the so-called Heroic Era of exploration in the Antarctic. The paper begins with the background to this long-running project, which has been under planning since 2002 and fully underway since early 2006, with completion expected c. 2013. It details the physical and logistical challenges of work-ing in this environment and the treatment methodologies devel-oped during the first winter season in 2006. It also discusses the way in which the project is developing site interpretation solutions to provide ongoing access to the huts and the program. This latter issue is a vital opportunity for promoting conservation components of the project, given continuing limited visitor access and the way in which modern telecommunications can provide real-time access to the conservators.

BACKGROUNDThe Heroic Era huts in AntarcticaAt the end of the nineteenth century the Antarctic region was largely unknown beyond the whaling industry based on small outlying islands. Exploration of the area became popular at the turn of the twentieth century with the race to conquer the Antarctic mainland and to reach the South Pole. This period became known as the Heroic Era of Antarctic exploration, lasting from 1899 to 1917 [2].

The Ross Dependency of Antarctica contains 34 historic sites [3], including four of the five original expedition bases left from the Heroic Era of exploration, Fig. 1 [4]. Nowhere else on the

CONSERVING AND INTERPRETING THE HISTORIC HUTS OF ANTARCTICA

Julian Bickersteth, Sarah Clayton and Fiona Tennant

ABSTRACT

Antarctic continent holds such a number of historic huts [5]. Explorers chose this part of Antarctica as a base from which to launch their expeditions due to its proximity to the South Pole. One base is on the Antarctic mainland at Cape Adare, the other three are on Ross Island. Ross Island is attached to the Antarctic mainland by the Ross Sea Ice Shelf, Fig. 2.

Fig. 1 The Ross Dependency, Antarctica. Image: AHT 2006.

Fig. 2 Ross Island, Antarctica. Image: AHT 2006.

2

The huts on Ross Island are:

• Discovery Hut (Hut Point), from Captain Scott’s first expedition 1901–1904,

• Nimrod Hut (Cape Royds), from Ernest Shackleton’s expedition 1907–1909,

• Terra Nova Hut (Cape Evans) from Scott’s last expedition 1910–1913; see Fig. 2 for hut locations.

All the huts were pre-fabricated kits from England and Australia. They were packaged for travel and erected by the crew when they arrived on the ice. The crew slept, ate and worked in the huts, Fig. 3. Each of the expedition bases had working space for at least one biologist, geologist, meteorologist and physicist [6], and a darkroom for the expedition’s photographer to proc-ess images. Together these four huts remain an “astonishingly powerful evocation of the men who risked their lives on those early expeditions” [7].

Project management and fundingThe conservation project, the Ross Sea Heritage Restoration Project, is managed by the Antarctic Heritage Trust of New Zealand (AHT), which was formed in 1987 to “care for the herit-age of the Heroic Era located in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica on behalf of the international community” [8]. The AHT is an independent, not-for-profit body that operates closely with the New Zealand crown entity, Antarctica New Zealand (AntNZ) in Christchurch. The relationship between the two bodies is critical, as AntNZ provides all the logistical support to enable AHT to operate in Antarctica, including air and ground travel, accom-modation on the ice and all clothing and food. Combined with the hut conservation program, which works in tandem with the artifact conservation program, the project is one of the largest programs supported by AntNZ.

The AHT is not funded by AntNZ beyond the latter providing logistical support. The AHT raises the necessary funds for the historic huts conservation project through a variety of means. This has included grants from NZ Lotteries, direct grants from the NZ Government, philanthropists in the USA, UK and NZ, and fund raising in NZ and the UK (where the AHT has a sister organization known as UKAHT).

Through a carefully built up program of developing relation-ships with key international players in the heritage field, such as the Getty Conservation Foundation and the World Monuments Fund, the AHT continues to be highly successful in raising both funds and profile for the huts, and can be cited as a model of how to build a fund-raising program for such a project.

THE CONSERVATION CHALLENGEAs unique tangible evidence of world exploration and human endurance from over 100 years ago, these huts are exception-ally special, but showing the signs of environmental and human impact. The huts and their contents are suffering from physical deterioration caused by several factors, including the environ-ment, human access and natural causes.

The Antarctic Treaty system includes the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This recog-nizes the importance of Antarctic historic sites and establishes a management framework for them [6, 9]. Within this framework, the huts are allocated the highest protection status possible, Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). Each ASPA has a conservation plan that includes maximum visitor levels and codes of conduct. All of the Heroic Era huts are ASPAs [5].

Physical deteriorationNo more than 2000 people are allowed to visit each hut per year [8], as required by the ASPA conservation plan, to minimize human impact on the sites and huts [10]. It is unlikely that these limits will change. They will not be raised, due to concerns about visitor impact [10]. They will not be lowered, as it is believed that the current levels are sustainable.

A balance of visitation is the key and the benefits of allowing visitation should not be underestimated [2]. Visiting and experi-encing the historical sites creates great advocates for the ongoing need for preservation [2, 11], and some become a major source of funds for the preservation program [2].

However, despite established protocols for pre-briefing of visitors, limitation of numbers in the huts at any one time and the provision of guides, there is evidence that visitation is con-tributing to damaging the huts and sites [2, 6], with resulting preservation concerns [11, 12]. Damage includes ingress of snow and scoria (the lava gravel around the huts) carried in on visi-tors’ boots. This causes physical damage to the floorboards and linoleum floor coverings. Further damage has been caused by visitors handling and moving artifacts.

Environmental deteriorationThe Antarctic environment is incredibly harsh. Extreme tem-peratures and wind speeds, humidity and salt are having a brutal effect on the huts and their contents, both inside and out. Wind and ice abrasion are gradually weakening elements of the hut structure and external movable heritage items as well.

Freeze-thaw cycles between winter and summer are affect-ing most materials including textiles, leather, metals, timber and glass. Artifacts placed adjacent to floor or wall surfaces tend to form ice crystals on the surface, particularly in the case of food cans, where the contents remain frozen while the packaging thaws.

Data logging of temperature and relative humidity (RH) conditions has been undertaken for nearly 10 years, and shows a consistent pattern of above-freezing temperatures and high RH levels in summer. However, there has been no conclusive evidence that the presence of visitors exacerbates these environmental levels. The high humidity during summer also has the effect of encouraging copious mould growth in damp sections of the inside of the huts.

Salts, primarily sodium chloride, come from a number of sources. Firstly all the Heroic Era huts are in close proximity to the sea. Salt from sea spray has accumulated in the environment, as there is no rain to wash it away. It is so abundant that the black scoria gravel surrounding the huts often appears to have a light dusting of frost, but on closer inspection it is identified as salt crystals. When the wind picks up, both the fine scoria and salt is blown into every crevice. Secondly, all the huts and contents

Fig. 3 Interior of Shackleton’s Hut at Cape Royds. Photo: J. Bickersteth.

3

traveled to Antarctica aboard ships. Some ships leaked badly and many of the provisions were stored on the top deck of the ships. A third factor that may pose a minor salt issue is the proximity of Mount Erebus, an active volcano.

THE CONSERVATION PROGRAMIn developing a program for the conservation of the artifacts, various options were considered for the location of treatment, including conservation on site at the huts, removal to New Zealand’s Scott Base and removal from the continent to facili-ties in New Zealand or elsewhere. On-site conservation proved to be logistically too challenging, while removal from Antarctica not only required complex permit arrangements, but also raised issues about the effect of changing environments on the arti-facts. It was therefore resolved that a purpose-built conservation laboratory would be established at Scott Base and the artifacts removed from the huts and treated there. This would allow for work to continue year round, and also still allow for artifacts that required complex treatment to be taken back to New Zealand. Conservators would be deployed in two teams, one to work at Scott Base during the winter months (February to August) and the other to work both at Scott Base and on site during the summer months (August to February).

Equipment and personnel A laboratory was designed from two modified shipping contain-ers to allow for a range of conservation functions, Fig. 4. These included documentation, microscopic analysis, fume extraction and washing/drying. Working areas for at least three conserva-tors, a cold porch to make access from outside more comfortable, and storage of chemicals, equipment and materials were also allowed for. All equipment was made in modular form so that it could be transferred to other spaces if need be. Finally, steel sleds were attached to allow them to be dragged out to the huts over the sea-ice. The laboratory was shipped to Scott Base at the end of the summer season in January 2006. During winter seasons, it has been found to be more efficient to move the equipment into one of the main Scott Base buildings so that work can continue even when weather conditions are extreme, Fig. 5.

Recruiting conservators who would be prepared to work in such extreme conditions was seen as an unknown quantity. Although conservators had been working with AHT during summer seasons from the late 1990s, they had all worked in the field for periods of no more than eight weeks. Advertisements were placed with conservation organizations internationally in mid-2005, seeking conservators for the first winter season of the program in 2006. This would involve being stationed at Scott Base for six months, joining the maintenance crew of 10

New Zealanders. Three months of this period would be in total darkness, and once the last plane leaves at the end of February, no physical access can be achieved until light returns in late August.

Over 80 expressions of interest were received from around the world, and 35 applications for the three positions submitted. This level of interest has continued at approximately the same intensity for subsequent seasons, reflecting an ongoing interest in challenging assignments among sections of the conservation profession.

Appointments have been made based on a range of criteria that include skills and experience appropriate to the artifacts, physical fitness, experience in living in remote locations and working in small teams and the likely fit with other team members.

To date, conservators from New Zealand, Australia, UK, USA, Canada and Germany have been appointed, and it is expected by the conclusion of the project as many as 60 conservators will have been to the ice, drawn from all over the world.

Conservation treatment methodologyConservation treatments on artifacts from the historic huts date back to the late 1980s. Until 2006, treatments had been some-what sporadic and the documentation scattered and variously recorded. Lack of detailed record keeping has been exacerbated by the difficult work environments on site and lack of continuity of conservation teams carrying out the work.

Treatments dating from the late 1980s had been either carried out in situ or the items had been removed to New Zealand for treatment. Most treatments had been carried out in the field in the challenging Antarctic conditions, which seriously inhibited what could be achieved, while many of those that had been taken to New Zealand had undergone very interventive treatments.

Fig. 4 The first winter-over team in front of the labs. Image: AHT 2006.

Fig. 5 Conservators working on the artifacts at Scott Base. Photo: S. Clayton.

4

A great variety of artifacts have been treated on site, ranging from various solid metal items, such as a cast iron stove and copper alloy bullets, to composite items, including tins of food, dog and human sledge harnesses, and textiles. Artifacts that had been treated in New Zealand and Australia included enamel ware, canned food, textiles and a variety of small metal items.

From the evidence available in the Antarctic Heritage Trust’s unpublished conservation reports [13], Clayton’s personal obser-vations over the 1997–2000 summer seasons, and the 2001–2002 conservation team report [14], it is clear that the treatments that have been most effective are those carried out in controlled environments off site, using standard conservation methods. The majority of artifacts treated this way were found to be in good condition having survived up to 15 years in the field, with little or no signs of deterioration. Treatments that had been noted as failing were those most likely carried out in situ with inadequate surface preparation.

The first batch of artifacts to be treated by the 2006 winter conservation team were from Nimrod Hut (Cape Royds, Shackleton’s expedition 1907–1909). These artifacts had been temporarily transported from the hut to Scott Base for conserva-tion. The treatment plan was devised by careful consideration of what treatments had worked in the past and what could reason-ably be achieved within the six months the team had at Scott Base. Treatments had to be performed in the simple laboratory, which, although well fitted out, had its limitations. For example, water was available but quantities were limited. It was therefore important to use treatment methods that had a sound history of use in the broader field of conservation.

Treatment on Antarctic artifacts can be roughly categorized in two ways, that is, a) those that can reasonably be performed on site at the huts, including preventive and mechanical treatments, and b) those that are difficult to perform on site and include the use of chemicals. The main priority for the 2006 winter team was to undertake the latter treatments.

Another major consideration for formulating the treatment plan was the importance of evidence associated with objects that helped to provide provenance. Many objects, especially the textile items, are covered in greasy soot that originates from the burning of seal blubber for heating, lighting and cooking. Some items of harness and clothing have dog hair on their surface, a link to the use of dogs. This soot and dog hair provides evidence of the nature of the men’s lives and is integral to the story of the objects.

The largest and probably the most problematic part of the Antarctic collection is the food collection, a significant part of which is the can collection. The cans contain a variety of con-tents ranging from ‘wet’ meats to dried grains and vegetables. The composite nature of these cans means that many solvents and standard metal treatments cannot be used, as one or more components of the artifact will be adversely affected.

The cans are tin plated and usually coated with a protective varnish or paint with printed and coated labels adhered to the external surface of the can. The cans that contain dry contents are often coated on the inside and sometimes have paper pam-phlets inside. An important consideration is the significance of the contents of the cans, as it is a rare to find a collection where so much of the food is still intact.

To aid the conservation and general management of the collection, artifacts are assessed and given a condition category of 1 to 5, 1 being in the best condition. To enable prioritization of treatment, artifacts in categories 1 to 3 were conserved first.

The condition of the can collection varies enormously, ranging from cans that are in near perfect condition, with what appears to be undamaged food inside, to cans that are only held together

by corrosion. Due to the size and significance of this part of the collection it was the main focus for the 2006 winter conserva-tion team, and sets the standards for many other collection treatments.

As many of the cans contained spoiled food, biological hazards were an important consideration and all possible safety precau-tions were taken. The following principles for treating the cans were used:

1. Thaw!

2. Physical removal of salts and corrosion. If the can was found to have been breached or leaking, then the food was mechanically removed via a hole cut in the base of the can.

3. Remove and treat paper labels (if possible).

4. Solvent or aqueous clean, depending upon the solubility of coating, adhesives, etc.

5. Chemical conversion of corrosion to a stable state using either tannic acid or phosphoric acid.

6. Apply a coating to protect the surface. Usually a two-part process, involving an acrylic resin followed by microc-rystalline wax.

7. Reattach treated label.

Prior to treatment the cans were stored in a shipping container outside at Scott Base, where they remained frozen. The first step therefore involved thawing the objects over a 48-hour period to bring the items from somewhere between –20 to –40oC, to the internal temperature of the laboratory, +16oC. The thawing process required careful monitoring as cans often begin to leak during this period. The first sign of this was the smell of rotten food emanating from the cans. Leaking cans were emptied and dried as soon as possible to protect the external coatings and paper labels. Wherever possible, the paper labels were removed for treatment, that is, they were washed, flattened and lined.

If the cans were intact they were mechanically cleaned to remove corrosion and salt deposits. Often the removal of the corrosion exposed leaks, so the contents were removed. Aqueous desalination is not usually an option, due to the solubility of the can coatings or the attachment of labels. Removal of the con-tents involves cutting three sides of a square into the base of the can then folding back the resultant flap. The contents are then poured, spooned or scraped out. A sample of each type of food from cans that were opened was saved and frozen and awaits return to New Zealand and a suitable home. These samples were documented, photographed and simple physical descrip-tions recorded. Descriptions included texture, smell and content degradation/separation, Figs 6 and 7.

The insides of the cans were mechanically cleaned and then whenever possible, solvent or aqueous cleaned. After a 24-hour period of drying, the cans were treated to stabilize corrosion. They were dried again for 24 hours and then coated with an acrylic resin and microcrystalline wax was applied. Due to the extreme environment back at the hut it was important to try to sustain the effect of treatment as much as possible, therefore a double coating system was chosen. The treated labels were then reattached.

In the 2006 winter season, over 100 non-canned items were also treated. These treatments included iron hooks, enamel ware, glass jars containing salt, ceramic insulators, copper alloy bullet cases, clothing, boots and harness. The principles for treatment of these items were similar to the methods used to treat the canned foods, although only metal, ceramic and salt components were coated in any way.

5

Many of the textile and leather artifacts treated in 2006 had come from locations outside and around the hut, Fig. 8. Many were damp, and appeared to have been wet for considerable periods of time. This was indicated by the deposits of both pink and green algae, penguin guano and feathers. Embrittlement, fading and embedded scoria also indicated the artifacts had spent excessive periods outside.

All artifacts were vacuum cleaned and, where possible, the textiles and boots were washed aqueously to remove salts, algae and guano. The embedded seal blubber soot on the textiles was not removed by the aqueous treatments. Stitching techniques were used to stabilize holes in the textiles and boots. Metal com-ponents were cleaned, washed and, where possible, chemically treated to stabilize active corrosion, and then coated. Washing of the textile and leather items removed much of the salt and increased flexibility.

The salt jars posed numerous problems. Many had cracked or broken as a result of water entering via damaged corks. The salt had subsequently expanded and become consolidated as a result of the water and freeze-thaw cycles, cracking the glass. Additionally the labels, which had been loosely placed inside the jars in direct contact with the salt, had turned to a fluffy unconsolidated mass. In order to treat these, the jars were opened and the lump of salt removed, with labels attached. The jars were then cleaned. The lump of salt was ‘carved’ to fit loosely back into the jar, samples of the removed salt were retained. The lump of salt and the paper label were consolidated with an acrylic adhesive. The salt was placed back into the jars and then the jars were repaired using acrylic adhesives. The corks were adhered in place to prevent further water ingress.

The results of these treatments undertaken during the first winter season in 2006 are being carefully monitored, both to ensure their effectiveness and also to guide future treatments. After a little over 12 months in the field these treatments are holding up to the conditions well. As described, the treatments have deliberately been developed to allow for ease of handover between conservators at each season. Given the arduousness of the project, particularly during the winter season, it is expected that few conservators will undertake more than one season at Scott Base. This will bring various opportunities, with each conservator bringing different approaches and experiences to the project, but with this will come challenges to ensure con-sistency of treatment. While continuing the treatment method-ologies developed by the 2006 team, the 2007 winter team has concentrated particularly on salt damage to metal, leather and paper artifacts, and the potential long-term effect of treating these items. This work is planned to be the subject of one of a number of papers on cold climate conservation that the project hopes to engender.

Access and interpretationApart from several permanent exhibitions around the world that contain original material from the Heroic Era of Antarctic exploration, the only way of currently accessing the collections is by visiting them physically. Each summer (December/January) small tour groups, either from visiting cruise ships or from the US Scientific Base at McMurdo, adjacent to Scott Base, are taken to one or several of the huts.

This visitation will continue as the conservation program pro-ceeds. However, the conservation program has been the catalyst to create further access to the huts and the conservation program by virtual means. This has included live telephone hook-ups with conferences, a presentation of a webcast and, most promi-nently, the writing of a blog hosted on London’s Natural History Museum’s website. It is the museum’s second most popular blog, already visited by tens of thousands of online visitors. It provides a mixture of entertaining and technical information about the conservation program and life at Scott Base. More locally, the Canterbury Museum in Christchurch, which holds the world’s strongest collection of Heroic Era Antarctic artifacts, is actively collaborating with AHT to promote the project. This involves both looking after the artifacts, which for various reasons of security and fragility have been removed from the ice, and

Fig. 6 Opening cans to remove contents. Photo: S Clayton 2006.

Fig. 7 Tripe and onions removed from a tin. Photo: S. Clayton 2006.

Fig. 8 Detail of deteriorating cases of food, exterior Cape Royds. Photo: J. Bickersteth.

6

managing AHT’s Vernon collection management system. AHT itself is active in promoting the conservation project to visitors to the site through publications of books, guides to the historic sites and conservation plans, lectures on visiting cruise ships and by holding open days at Scott Base for the nearby US Antarctic program at McMurdo.

This has resulted in a number of benefits. Not only has it helped to promote the conservation program and the stories behind the huts, and thus indirectly help fundraising, it has also assisted conservators who may have struggled with the isolation of Antarctica to recognize the international interest in the project and the value of the work they are undertaking.

As the artifacts are returned to the huts, their layout is being refined to reflect more accurately the period of first occupation, based upon physical and written documentation. While this is an important part of the project, the fundamental interpretive value of the huts lies in the physical survival of the structures and their contents, leading the World Monuments Fund to call Scott’s Hut at Cape Evans “The world’s most evocative heritage building” [15].

CONCLUSIONBy the end of 2008 it is expected that the entire contents of Shackleton’s hut at Cape Royds, numbering almost 5000 artifacts, will have been conserved and returned to the hut. The larger task of treating the c. 8000 artifacts at Scott’s hut at Cape Evans will have begun, while fund raising continues in order to be able to undertake this work as we draw nearer to the centenary of Scott’s death in 2012. At the same time it is expected that the work of conserving the 500 artifacts at Cape Adare will need to be undertaken as a parallel project. To complete the project, the 350 artifacts at Scott’s first hut at Hut Point will also require treatment.

The program is therefore likely to run until about 2013. By then, a complete picture of the most appropriate way in which to train, equip and service conservators for such a task can be brought back to be reported to the conservation profession. This then is a ‘work in progress’ report on what is one of the most exciting conservation projects in the world.

REFERENCES 1 Tennant, F., and Bickersteth, J., ‘Conserving in the deep freeze.

Saving and interpreting the Heroic Era huts of the Ross Dependency in Antarctica’, conference paper presented at the AICOMOS 2007 Conference Extreme Heritage, James Cook University, 19–21 July 2007, www.aicomos.com/files/fionatennant.pdf (accessed 21 April 2008).

2 Chaplin, P., ‘Polar heritage sites at risk — politics, principles and practical problems’, in Cultural Heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, ICOMOS IPHC, Oslo (2004) 24–28.

3 Antarctic Heritage Trust, The historic huts of the Ross Sea region, Antarctic Heritage Trust, Christchurch (2004).

4 Chaplin, P., and Barr, S., ‘An overview of polar heritage sites’, in Cultural Heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, ICOMOS IPHC, Oslo (2004) 9–12.

5 Tennant, F., Creating educational and inspirational experiences with geographically remote cultural collections: Opportunities

for the Heroic Era explorer huts in Antarctica, MA dissertation, University of Leicester (2007) (unpublished).

6 Farrell, R., Blanchett, R., Auger, M., Duncan, S., Held, B., Jurgens, J., and Minasaki, R., ‘Scientific evaluation of deterioration in historic huts of Ross Island, Antarctica’, in Cultural Heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, ICOMOS IPHC, Oslo (2004) 33–38.

7 Antarctic Heritage Trust, Conservation Plan for Discovery Hut, Hut Point, Antarctic Heritage Trust, Christchurch (2004).

8 Antarctic Heritage Trust, www.heritage-antarctica.org/index.cfm (accessed 21 April 2008).

9 Pearson, M., ‘Artefact or rubbish — a dilemma for Antarctic man-agers’, in Cultural Heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, ICOMOS IPHC, Oslo (2004) 39–43.

10 Wills, F., personal communication, 24 January 2007.

11 Barr, S., ‘Polar monuments and sites’, in Cultural Heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, ICOMOS IPHC, Oslo (2004) 18–23.

12 Hughes, J., ‘Deterioration of Antarctic historic sites — effects of Antarctic climates on materials and implications for preservation’, in Cultural Heritage in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, ICOMOS IPHC, Oslo (2004) 29–32.

13 International Conservation Services, Condition Assessment and Conservation Proposal for the Antarctic Can Collection, Interna-tional Conservation Services, Sydney (1996) (unpublished).

14 Viduka, A., Antarctic Heritage Trust Trip report for summer 2001–2002, Antarctic Heritage Trust (2002) (unpublished).

15 World Monument Fund, ‘2008 world monuments watch list of 100 most endangered sites’, http://wmf.org/pdf/Watch_2008_list.pdf (accessed 21 April 2008). I have put a link to the document — not just the home page!

AUTHORSJulian Bickersteth graduated from Oxford University in 1979 with a degree in theology before training as a furniture conservator at West Dean College, Sussex. After working privately in London, he was appointed as the first furniture conservator at the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney in 1984. He established International Conservation Services (ICS) in 1987, and is currently the managing director. ICS is contracted by AHT as technical advisers for the Ross Sea Historic Huts artifact con-servation program. Julian’s interest in Antarctica began with work on the Australian Douglas Mawson’s Hut at Commonwealth Bay, which dates from 1914. He has been advising AHT since 1996, and has undertaken two summer projects at the historic huts in 2004 and 2006. Address: International Conservation Services, 53 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood NSW 2067, Sydney, Australia. Email: j.bickersteth@icssydney.com

Sarah Clayton trained as a textile conservator at the University of Canberra, graduating in 1992. After graduating Sarah spent seven years working at the National Gallery of Australia, after which she moved to the Australian War Memorial. Sarah is currently the Senior Textile Conservator at the Australian War Memorial. Sarah has spent four summers working in the field in Antarctica for AHT and in 2006 was the Senior Conservator on the first winter-over season in Antarctica. Address: Australian War Memorial, PO Box 345, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. Email: sarah.clayton@awm.gov.au

Fiona Tennant also trained as a textile conservator at the University of Canberra and graduated in 1992. After graduating Fiona began work-ing at ICS, retraining in preventive conservation and completing a masters degree in Museum Studies from the University of Leicester in 2007. She has been on the ICS team, providing technical advice and support to AHT, from 2003. Address: as for Bickersteth. Email: f.tennant@icssydney.com