The Impermanence of Exploration and the Temporary Settlements of Sea Voyages: A Case Study Using The Franklin Expedition

Your University The Impermanence of Exploration and the Temporary Settlements of Sea Voyages: A Case Study Using The Franklin Expedition by [Your Name] Subject and Section Professor’s Name November 1, 2024 Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc181378376 \h 2Overview of the Concept of Temporary Settlements PAGEREF _Toc181378377 \h 2Case Study Introduction: The Franklin Expedition PAGEREF _Toc181378378 \h 3Research Questions and Objectives PAGEREF _Toc181378379 \h 4Temporary Settlements in Archaeological Perspective PAGEREF _Toc181378380 \h 5Definition and Characteristics of Temporary Settlements PAGEREF _Toc181378381 \h 5Challenges in Archaeological Visibility PAGEREF _Toc181378382 \h 6Material Disintegration and Preservation Conditions PAGEREF _Toc181378383 \h 6Sparse Artifact Density PAGEREF _Toc181378384 \h 7Ambiguity of Spatial Patterns PAGEREF _Toc181378385 \h 7The Franklin Expedition: History, Purpose, and Legacy PAGEREF _Toc181378386 \h 8Historical Background PAGEREF _Toc181378387 \h 8Structure of the Expedition PAGEREF _Toc181378388 \h 9Failure and Aftermath PAGEREF _Toc181378389 \h 10Legacy and Historical Significance PAGEREF _Toc181378390 \h 11Material Culture of Temporary Settlements and Archaeological Visibility PAGEREF _Toc181378391 \h 12Artifacts and Cultural Material in Temporary Settlements PAGEREF _Toc181378392 \h 12Preservation and Decay of Artifacts PAGEREF _Toc181378393 \h 13Theoretical Approaches to Identifying Temporary Settlements PAGEREF _Toc181378394 \h 14Archaeological Findings from the Franklin Expedition PAGEREF _Toc181378395 \h 16Discovery and Excavation PAGEREF _Toc181378396 \h 16Analysis of Artifacts PAGEREF _Toc181378397 \h 17Forensic and Environmental Evidence PAGEREF _Toc181378398 \h 18Inuit Contributions to Archaeological Knowledge PAGEREF _Toc181378399 \h 19The Franklin Expedition and the Archaeological Study PAGEREF _Toc181378400 \h 19Contribution to Archaeological Theory PAGEREF _Toc181378401 \h 19Methodological Lessons PAGEREF _Toc181378402 \h 20Interdisciplinary Significance PAGEREF _Toc181378403 \h 22Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc181378404 \h 22 Introduction Overview of Temporary Settlements In the archaeological research framework, temporary settlements, the territories inhabited for a limited period with small-scale and short-term activities in focus, are essential but problematic topics. Unlike the permanent or even semi-permanent settlements, which typically create multi-layered numerous material remains traces, temporary occupations differ by their less noticeable and not as numerous remains compared to the more intense and ingrained monumental survives of the settled house forms. Sites like these can have a diverse typology and be associated with exploration sites. Depending on these factors, the spatial and material configuration may vary from place to place. Their benefit lies in showing how early people coped with perceived social and environmental challenges regarding the availability, accessibility, and mobility of resources. These short-lived sites allow the researcher to depict human activities qualitatively, record survival planning in marginal contexts, and examine cultural reactions to new or severe conditions. Account will now be taken of how these decisions inform the spatial properties of societies or a given group when temporary settlements are utilized to discern the organism's living techniques logistically and adaptively in extreme or completely unknown territories. Because they are short-term in focus, there is generally rationalization of decisions taken on shelter, food storage, and gear, which reminds societies of the basics of survival and culturally acceptable priorities under given conditions. This type of structure is informative in that, unlike permanent structures, studying temporary structures enables one to decipher various decisions people made in their way of noble, provisional living and other aspects of their culture that may not be easily mirrored in other artifacts. Through the physical context, organization, and effects of these places, researchers can rediscover the spirit of endurance, flexibility, and organization that characterized communities during the age that was the focus of this paper. Case Study Introduction: The Franklin Expedition The Lewis and Clarke of the Arctic, which was the Franklin Expedition (aka ‘Expedition’) in 1845, is another type of lesson of a temporary settlement under a permanent Arctic regime. Accordingly, popular history shows that this British venture involved Sir John Franklin and others' intention to find and map the legendary Northwest Passage, the sea-ice connection between the Atlantic and Pacific. HMS Erebus left England in company with HMS Terror, with a crew of 129 officers and men; both ships were provisioned with food expected to last three years. Although the actual historical record of the events that transpired after that remains sketchy, the vessel crew was stuck in ice around King William Island in the present-day territory of Nunavut, Canada. When the supplies ran low, the weather turned severe, and the members failed to know the right way to survive the Arctic winter; the expedition took a wrong turn, and everyone is said to have perished.[Simmonds, P. L. (1875). The arctic regions, and polar discoveries during the nineteenth century: With the discoveries made by Captain McClintock as to the fate of the Franklin expedition.] [Simmonds, id.] The case of the Expedition offers insights into the dynamics of the temporary occupation of rugged landscapes. Even the sequence of the main characters' changeovers from the well-provisioned ships to the deserted and the primitive, such as ice floes with wild animals hunting, reflects the transition to the rescue attempts only. None of the other Arctic exploration sites that have survived to the present time can be compared with those connected with the threat of the expedition: the remains of the ships themselves, the Victory Point cairn, and scattered artifacts provide the archaeologist with a tense and impressive view of the difficulties of the North Pacific explorations. Moreover, Inuit traditions have served as the key to finding these remnants, filling in the gaps that archaeological evidence otherwise would have represented. The material evidence collected on the expedition provides detailed insights into the nature of the temporary occupation, time-use requirements, and difficulties, as well as the complex technique and human spirit indicated by both physical and material conditions.[McGoogan, K. (2023). Searching for Franklin: New Answers to the Great Arctic Mystery. Douglas & McIntyre.] [Mossé, Marie. "An overview of Inuit perspectives on Franklin’s lost expedition (1845–1846): a few avenues for discussion and future research–commentary to Pawliw, Berthold, and Lasserre." Fennia-International Journal of Geography 199, no. 2 (2021): 273–280.] Research Questions and Objectives In this paper, there are several essential questions that this paper will endeavor to answer, specifically regarding Franklin as a temporary settlement. First, what physical properties remain related to the fixed or semi-fixed expedition camps and the more temporary constructions that the Jamestowners and other early colonists formulated from the materials in the region, and how may these components relate to examples of other temporary camps and colonies seen in the archaeological record? Secondly, in what manner and to what extent did materials and findings from Franklin's Expedition paint a pragmatic picture of living in Arctic territory for a fixed period and responding to issues of feeding, abode, and medical needs? Third, how much does the Franklin Expedition's remains reveal about European explorers' ability—or inability—to adapt to the new environment? With these questions answered, this paper intends to situate the said within the broader topic of temporary settlements. As part of this expedition, this study notes that exploration missions, whether motivated by imperialism or scientific intervention, meet and sometimes cannot overcome the challenges of living in temporary habitats under extreme conditions. Splitting the analysis of the expedition into temporary settlements will allow this study to contribute to the understanding of the archaeological and associated cultural aspects of the exploration-era settlements and shed light on other methods of thriving and surviving beyond the strictly historical narrative. Temporary Settlements in Archaeological Perspective Definition and Characteristics of Temporary Settlements Temporary settlements are described as temporary structures built and used for a limited duration, for a few days, weeks, or just a few months at most. Such settlements are typified by nondurable shelter structures, highly transportable goods, and finite archeological traces because of the mobility of the inhabitants. They differ from more standardized archaeologically identified settlements in that they are characterized by more limited monumental architecture, fewer and less dense artifacts, and the ability to occupy a far more comprehensive range of environments. Compared to long-term systems that require elaborate planning and the commitment of significant resources, Short-term systems emphasize practicality, flexibility, and effectiveness to serve short-term goals.[Stanislawski, Michael B. "Ethnoarchaeology and settlement archaeology." Ethnohistory (1973): 375-392.] These settlements' temporal dimensions and purpose determine their structure and material and cultural attributes. For example, hunting or exploration campsites include more or less the necessary activities like food storage, shelter, and tool maintenance. The site selection is mainly based on strategic or environmental factors like water resources, shields against weather elements, or accessibility to some resources. If, on the one hand, temporary settlements generally represent a very short occupation during which structures are built and abandoned, on the other hand, it is, commonly speaking, characterized by simple and strongly reduced material expressions concerning only the bare necessities of life, like tools, building materials, and food leftovers. This impacts how and where they are preserved and represented in the archaeological record because these settlements' typical small-scale and ephemeral nature often results in fragmented and widely dispersed artifacts.[Rossignol, Jaqueline, and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds. Space, time, and archaeological landscapes. Springer Science & Business Media, 1992.] Challenges in Archaeological Visibility One must first start by explaining what constitutes the challenge of studying temporary settlements; these are short-lived and, therefore, offer little tangible archaeological remains upon which an archaeologist can posit his or her interpretations. Several key factors contribute to the difficulty in identifying and interpreting these sites within the archaeological record. Material Disintegration and Preservation Conditions Uses and customs of the temporary structures are typical of materials less permanent than the rocks or stones: woods, fabrics, or organic products rather than solid structures of stone or bricks. These materials can degrade quickly, especially if the surrounding environment is unfavorable or varies often, and minimal physical artifacts may result. For example, those sites in which campsites are marked by organic structures such as animal skins or thatched huts will represent only very slight depressions in the ground and minor stains in the soil. The eventual fate of artifacts from ephemeral locations remains dependent on local parameters and constraints; even in extremely cold or arid conditions, organic material can become occasionally preserved, as evidenced in the contexts of eighteenth-century Arctic camps of the ill-fated journey.[Slocombe, Matthew. Traditional Building Materials. Vol. 634. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012.] [Fjågesund, Peter. "Fastening the Grip: 1790–1830." In The Dream of the North, pp. 249–330. Brill, 2014.] Sparse Artifact Density Therefore, compared to more permanent domiciles, where many possessions are gathered over the human lifespan, temporary domiciles typically possess fewer artifacts. Most objects left and taken to these places are essential; only tiny home garbage or complex constructions are left behind. Such low-density patterns of artifacts make it hard for the temporary camps to differentiate from natural layers or even the general background of an archaeological culture. In addition, because material culture tends to be slight and scattered at the temporary settlement site, the definition and typology of such a site usually involve detailed and sensitive spatial investigation. Ambiguity of Spatial Patterns One of the main issues with interpreting the function of temporary settlements is that they rarely exhibit clear spatial organization or architecture set up on a fixed, permanent basis. Lacking separable morphological elements and systematic layouts, cultural archaeologists use multiple signs of object aggregation and density as geochemical and spatial distribution data to restore practices and uses of a site. This blurriness results in various approaches regarding temporary sites and, thus, demands that an archaeologist formulate working definitions that are elastic and accommodating to different settings.[Kowalewski, Stephen A. "Regional settlement pattern studies." Journal of Archaeological Research 16 (2008): 225–285.] [Kowalewski, id.] From the discussion above, it could be seen that the Expedition illustrates such challenges as an exploration settlement case in this paper. Thus, the debris of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, as well as other items and human relics discovered on King William Island, make it very difficult to construct a clear image of the last stages of the expedition. The environment in which the Franklin crew found itself had discouraged the reuse of places and has dispersed its relics more systematically over time than in other well-documented arctic tragedies. The Franklin Expedition: History, Purpose, and Legacy Historical Background The expedition, as discussed above, was commanded by Sir John Franklin and began in 1845 to find the lost Northwest Passage. This royal route passes through the Arctic and joins the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. The finding of this passage provided hope for trade benefits; new market options for Britain to Asia supposedly were to be discovered but, at the same time, tied to a shift in status: the British Empire aimed to remain a significant global player through geography and science. Franklin had sailed various Arctic explorations, so his contribution accredits and offers optimism about the expedition's outcome. It was intended that it would explore the last two regions of the Canadian Arctic archipelago that remained largely blank on British maps of the extreme northern frontier of North America.[McCannon, John. "Exploring and mapping the Arctic: Histories of discovery and knowledge." In The Routledge Handbook of the Polar Regions, pp. 19–33. Routledge, 2018.] Starting from England on May 19, 1845, the two ships that started the expedition were highly supplied, namely the HMS Erebus and the HMS Terror. Franklin and his group of 129 men intended to sail through the unknown polar ice water, chart the region's geographical features, and collect other important research information, such as magnetic surveys. Nonetheless, the expedition, like all his previous Vice-Admiralty Board-supported attempts, was judged to be the epitome of British naval accomplishments using the enhancements in navigation, ship construction, and Arctic survival techniques. However, the trip could only begin, and it turned out to be far more grueling than had been envisaged. The two vessels and their crews ended up drifting in ice, and when succumbing to its impassive climate, both vessels and human crews could not survive on King William Island.[McGoogan, id.] Structure of the Expedition Both the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror had earlier been used for polar exploration. Such ships could be considered top-notch in their time and incorporate technological fixes meant for operation in the Arctic. With iron plates along the vessels' bows and steam engines borrowed from railway locomotives but with more power, the ship could move through the ice at up to four knots while being independent of wind guarantees. They als...