A small group of archaeologists has expressed concern over the bonus prize, claiming that any attempts to pilot a rover around an Apollo site might damage or destroy them. This position assumes that Apollo landing sites would be considered as highly significant cultural landmarks, even though they exist off-world. To their credit, Google has stated that they hope that any rover piloted around an Apollo site would take due care, but go on to explain that maintaining such standards is beyond their mandate. Furthermore, they cite Apollo 12, in which Commander Pete Conrad and Lunar Module pilot Alan Bean visited Surveyor 3 (an unmanned probe that had landed 3 years earlier) as setting a president for visiting lunar heritage sites. In fact, Conrad removed several pieces of Surveyor 3 (artifacts?!) which were taken back to earth to study.
There are many fascinating aspects to this story - that constitutes cultural heritage? what makes a heritage site significant? Should we protect off-world landmarks like the Apollo landing sites in the same way that we would protect Stone Henge, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, or the Maya site of Chichen Itza? Furthermore, if we protect Apollo landing sites, should we also protect sites on other planets where human built probes have landed?
For example, 13 probes have "landed" on the surface of Venus - all Soviet.
Venera 3 probe "crash" landed on Venus on March 1, 1966.
Venera 4 landed on October 18, 1967 but had no battery power left. Probably crashed.
Venera 5 & 6 both crashed due to the high atmospheric pressure of Venus's atmosphere.
Venera 7 "landed" but not as intended but still operated.
Venera 8,9,10 and 11 all landed and returned data back to Earth.
Venera 12,13,14 and 15 all landed and returned data back to Earth.
At least 9 probes have landed on Mars - Mars 2, Mars3, Mars6, Viking1, Viking2, Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix.
Should the sites where these probes lie eventually be considered as heritage sites? If so, how would they be protected, and from what?
I would be interested in hearing your responses to these interesting questions......
My first thought is how vain ethnocentric we are as a human race. We must protect everything that we have ever touched because we are so superior to everything else (sarcasm). Why are we protecting some supposed site of the lunar landing ( didn't Stanley Kubrick essentially make this landing up??). Haha furthermore we act as if we own the moon. How naive and arrogant to think that we as humans can protect a celestial body. Why aren't we TRYING to protecting the various comet crash sites or dried up river ways? What marvels are just below the surface in the permafrost that we don't even understand? How much information will these lunar drones destroy that we didn't create!? why isn't science concerned for these? It's ironic... Don't ya think.... we must protect our footprints on the moon, but not the moon itself.
ReplyDeleteBut stepping back into reality, I think the contest is brilliant in that it will hopefully usher in the new era of space exploration. Which seems to be less nationalistic and more entrepreneurial ( which I suppose could be another word for nationalistic within certain nations). This evolution of space exploration sort of mirrors culture-historical archaeology, I think, in how it started as a national venture designed to promote a nations superiority and has now become a more individual venture.
I'm all for the "progress" that can be made through competition and individual trial and error. And furthermore I find it exciting that everyday people can participate, even if they have no chance in winning.
The lunar landing for me is just more proof of human desire to colonize every bit of space we can. So long as we've documented (Thank you Stanley Kubrick) and recorded our observations, let future civilizations have the adventure of interpreting their past...Let the site wither and die I have no use for it any longer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post, it think what comes to mind the most is the definition of archaeology, as a branch of anthropology that we get taught every intro class. I can understand how a site would possibly be relevant in anthro but I question whether it is relevant to arky. To me arky looks at the past through material remains and the environment surrounding then but does the landing site falling into this category?? I suppose technically it would. This makes me question not only 'what is cultural heritage' but also 'what is archaeology' and 'what is the past'
ReplyDeleteThis is also only a problem that could have developed as the study of archaeology developed. Now we know what we are looking for when we see a sight so we are getting ahead of ourselves and trying to create one before one exists. I'm pretty certain past cultures weren't thinking 'oh man, i better make sure this refuse site remains intact. it really represents my cultural heritage'. I feel that by looking at this site from an archaeological point of view we are defining what will be important in the future before it is the future.
I think we need to make a distinction between what we may be trying to retrieve for scientific purposes and if we are just trying to include theses as heritage sites. For example, if scientists could go to Mars and collect the rover for advancement of the interplanetary science then retrieval of the artifact may be permitted.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we just want to send a camera there to behave like tourists destroying the surrounding landscape, then promoting such a disregard for the site is probably unwelcome. For example, we have many photographs of the footprints left behind by the astronauts that would be easily destroyed just to be able to say we were there.
Julie Thomas
Being an amateur of astronomy and fairly new to the UofC archaeology program, I found this blog really exciting. It involved an aspect of archaeology that I didn’t think was possible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that considering protecting potential archaeological sites now, for future generations, is a step in the right direction. Corporations are already offering “space adventures” for the wealthy tourist. And I’m sure there will be a race for acquiring souvenirs and uncontrolled scientific sampling. In one of the first unmanned missions to the moon, someone had sneezed into the interior of a camera and then had loaded it onto a spaceship. When the astronauts discovered the bacteria they had originally thought they found evidence of life on the moon. This is just one example of how important it is to try to control what we are putting into space, so we have the ability to perform experiments that might help scientists discover more about our universe. I understand that it is not always feasible to save all of the archaeological record in any site that is being excavated. But it is important to strike a good balance.
Someday, someone may want to examine the development of humans in space. Are not the footprints alone, left after the Apollo mission, equally as important as the Laetoli ones? Imagine what could be learned about our numerous “space failures” that only archaeology can dig up. Just think…what if archaeologists get into space fieldwork and find evidence of long gone extraterrestrial civilizations. Archaeology in space is an amazing opportunity.
Katrina Kosyk
I think that Google is onto something! I think that this might be a great way to bring space exploration and interplanetary sciences into the everyday world of business. There are however some problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that first of all we need to determine what can be considered cultural heritage and what constitutes a cultural heritage site? I think that this is a very broad concept. Depending on whom you ask each and every probe, rover or man landing site on the moon could be considered an important cultural heritage landmark that should be maintained and protected for future generations to enjoy. I’m not sure about you, but talking with my parents, they certainly remembered when the Apollo 11 mission touched down on the moon and Neil Armstrong took his first steps. That is important cultural heritage! I think that protecting these sites is extremely important not only for future scientific research but for generations to come to enjoy.
Secondly, I think it is important to determine what constitutes and artifact. An artifact is an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest. By this definition, it is clear that in one form or another all the lunar landing sites are artifacts.
By these above definitions it is very clear to me that as insignificant as some of these sites seem to some they are extremely important to human culture and should be preserved and protected for future generations to enjoy.
Rob Leach
It is complicated, in my opinion, toestablish what should be considered as a true archaeological site that must remain untouched. I think whether a site is on our planet or off earth it should still be considered an archaeological site due to the fact that there was some kind of human activity involved. Hence, the moon, just like other archaeological sites we have in Mesoamerica etc... must be treated the same way. On the other hand I also agree with one of the comments, saying that if the destruction or modification of a site is needed for scientific purposes then that would be ok.
ReplyDelete