The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (the forerunner of the Arctic Council) and the Northern Forum are both products of the sea change in Arctic politics occurring in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Both are soft law arrangements and both are lightly institutionalized. Yet these similarities have not provided a basis for collaboration between the Arctic Council (AC) and the Northern Forum (NF). For the most part, the two bodies have behaved like ships passing in the night. This article seeks to explain this lack of collaboration and to evaluate future prospects in this realm. The lack of collaboration is attributable in part to a number of sources of tension or fault lines, including issues relating to core-periphery relations, the concerns of indigenous peoples, divergent constituencies, the Russian connection, and bureaucratic politics and the complexities of political leadership. In part, it stems from ambiguities about the status of the AC and the NF combined with restrictions on the roles these bodies can play. There is little prospect of combining the two bodies into a more comprehensive Arctic regime. But there are opportunities to devise a realistic division of labor and to develop useful coordination mechanisms. The AC, for example, is the appropriate vehicle for efforts to strengthen the voice of the Arctic regarding global issues; the NF is well-suited to dealing with matters of community viability. Ultimately, the two bodies might consider creating a joint working group on sustainable development or organizing occasional joint meetings of the AC's Senior Arctic Officials and the NF's Executive Committee.

Historical records, recent observations, and geomorphological evidence indicate that rates of retreat and downwasting of the tidewater Stephenson Glacier, and concurrent expansion of ice-marginal melt-lakes, has increased by an order of magnitude since 1987. Melt-lake expansion is partly the product of greatly accelerated ablation of older, ice-cored twentieth-century moraines. The timing of these changes broadly coincides with reported increases in atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures around other sub-Antarctic islands, but correlates less well with changes along the northern Antarctic Peninsula, where warming has been more rapid. These recent changes in landscape character and geomorphological processes have implications for geodiversity, biodiversity, and cultural heritage values in this World Heritage Area. If the causal climatic warming is anthropogenic, it reinforces the fact that even the most remote and littlevisited nature conservation reserves may be compromised by off-site human impacts, confronting management authorities with difficult philosophical and practical issues.

Antarctica and Australia share a geographical marginality, a commonality that has produced and continues to reinforce historical and political ties between the two continents. Given this close relationship, surprisingly few fulllength novels set in or concerned with the Antarctic have been produced by Australian authors. Until 1990, two latenineteenth- century Utopias, and two novels by Thomas Keneally, were (to our knowledge) the sole representatives of this category. The last decade, however, has seen an upsurge of interest in Antarctica, and a corresponding increase in fictional response. Keneally's novels are ‘literary,’ but these more recent novels cover the gamut of popular genres: science fiction, action-thriller, and romance. Furthermore, they indicate a change in the perception of Antarctica and its place within international relations. Whereas Keneally is primarily concerned with the psychology of the explorer from the ‘Heroic Age,’ these younger Australian writers are interested in contemporary political, social, and environmental issues surrounding the continent. Literary critics have hitherto said little about textual representations of Antarctica; this paper opens a space for analysis of ‘Antarctic fiction,’ and explores the changing nature of Australian-Antarctic relations as represented by Australian writers.

Significant deterioration to the historic expedition huts of the Ross Sea region of Antarctica has occurred during the past decades from exposure to the polar environment. One type of deterioration that has affected all of the huts is a chemical attack resulting in a defibration of wood. Wood surfaces have a rough, fuzzy appearance and consist of white to yellow-brown masses of detached fibers. The damage is commonly associated with areas where water with dissolved salts is absorbed by wood. As moisture evaporates from the wood surface, exceedingly high concentrations of salt accumulate. Chemical reactions within the wood cause a corrosive degradation on the middle lamella region of the woody cell wall (the area located between cells that cements them together) and may gradually degrade all cell-wall layers. As the deterioration progresses, cells continue to separate and the wood is converted into masses of detached and eroded wood fibers. In advanced stages of attack, the wood structure and integrity is severely compromised. This paper describes the defibration process, reports locations on Ross Island where the damage is severe, and discusses methods to control the problem. Successful preservation of these important historic structures and cultural objects depends on a more complete understanding of the unique deterioration processes underway and on implementation of effective strategies to conserve the huts.

Further details regarding the landing made by Klarius Mikkelsen in the Tryne Islands, Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica, are given, being derived mainly from newspaper accounts made by Leif S0rsdal. All involved in the landing on 20 February 1935 have been identified, details of material left in the depot under the raised flag are given, and more extended information relating to the voyage to and from the site and the area generally are presented. Some comparison is made between Sørsdal's accounts and others. While the national importance of the landing was commented on, only S0rsdal apparently realised (but did not state) the insular nature of the site. Recent observations at the site suggest that its location is 68°22′38.22″S, 78°24′50.10″E, rather than that previously stated; bracing of the flagpole itself has been modified at some stage since its erection. Finally, some discussion is made regarding on-going questions relating to the accepted time on board ship, and possible consequences of errors.

By an agreement in 1839, the Hudson's Bay Company and the Russian American Company established a framework for co-operation in their activities in Alaska and adjacent areas of Canada that lasted until the 1860s. The signatories to the agreement were George Simpson and Ferdinand von Wrangell. These men were prominent in the management of the co-operation and this was facilitated by their mutual trust and friendship. An examination of their correspondence affords insights into business methods in a cross-cultural environment in the mid-nineteenth century, and into the extent to which their personal relations influenced major decisions in economics and politics with regard to the areas of activity of both companies.

This article is concerned with the knowledge of sea ice as developed and transmitted by the Inuit of Igloolik (Nunavut, Canada). The information on which this article is based was obtained from travelling, observation, and interviewing carried out from October 2000 to May 2001 in Igloolik, as well as several existing interviews from the Igloolik Oral History Project database. Inuit knowledge of sea ice reveals a deep understanding of the complex relationships between ice, currents, the Moon, and the winds, as well as a holistic approach to knowledge where classification based on a western scientific approach becomes difficult, if not counter-productive. Through detailed knowledge of ice topography, sea ice becomes a familiar territory for the Inuit of Igloolik, and, through the understanding of the ‘codes’ of the moving ice, its changing nature becomes predictable. This article does not pretend to give a full account of a system of knowledge the understanding of which requires a lifetime of practice and observation. However, it describes some of its elements and offer some insights regarding this complex aspect of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit knowledge, also known as IQ).

A claim that there are substantial discrepancies between direct observations of the Antarctic sea-ice edge and the implicit sea-ice edge derived from whaling records is rebutted. The claimeddiscrepancies are shown to arise largely from comparing the two types of information from different dates. A date-corrected comparison shows generally good agreement between the southernmost limit of whaling and the most comprehensive of the early monthly ice charts of Antarctica. The remaining apparent discrepancies are accounted for either by very limited data or the complex nature of the ice edge in the region of the Weddell ice tongue. Correlation of the southernmost limits of whaling with direct observations of the ice edge provides the most powerful calibration of the relationship between them

The Russian northeast Siberian expedition (1820–24) is generally associated with Ferdinand von Wrangell. However, although Wrangell was the overall leader of the expedition, it actually consisted of two groups, with Peter Anjou in command of the Ust'-Yansk group. Anjou'sexpeditionnotes, asopposed to Wrangell's, have not been published, and for that reason he is little known. However, the results of his expedition are well comparable to Wrangell's.