Abstract
Between 1840 and 1880, multiple ships travelled towards the Atlantic coast of Patagonia, engaging in guano extraction. The Patagonian guano, though of inferior quality to the Peruvian product, was one of the most valuable coastal resources of the region. Drawing on a wide variety of documents and literature, the author has explored exploitation practices and logistics. 11 guano deposits exploited have been mapped and linked with details such as vessels, companies and harbours. The history of guano in the region shows an entanglement of connections and competition regarding the resource, raising inter-imperial disputes where different state and non-state agents operated to benefit both distant and regional economies.
The term ‘guano’ comes from the Quechua word wanu and usually refers to excrement used as fertilizer, especially that produced by seabirds. The properties of guano became public knowledge after Alexander von Humboldt divulged them at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In 1840, the various experiments conducted with guano reached their peak, and guano started to be mined and processed in different parts of the world to enter the European and American markets as a critical element for farmers who wanted to maximize their production. 1 Guano deposits were searched for and discovered in South Africa, Patagonia, California and the central Pacific. Peruvian guano was soon revealed to be the most abundant and the best, whereas the Patagonian fertilizer was considered of lesser quality. 2 The Patagonian guano deposits were more exposed to rain, and chemical studies showed that they contained less salts and ammonia. Even so, the product was profitable enough to motivate several voyages to the region. In 1880, such activity declined and was prohibited by the national government of Argentina, though it was resumed years later. 3 A reconstruction of the exploitation practices between 1840 and 1880 reveals systematic extractions in the region and adds context and complexity to Patagonia's colonization processes and conquests. This article explores this regional guano extraction – its practices, locations and maritime connections, and disputes over the resource. Different sources were analysed, including the shipping register of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, scientific explorations, travel accounts, chemical analyses and documentation from different countries. The scarce literature regarding the subject has also been included in the study. 11 geographical locations where the activity was developed have been mapped, with a table listing, among other things, details of the years of extraction, ships loading the product and companies involved.
This article approaches the history of Patagonian guano from a transnational perspective, 4 following the tendency to analyse how global processes connect different parts of the world. 5 Guano extraction has been considered a form of ‘neo-ecological imperialism’, where different western societies imported goods, services or energies from other ecosystems. 6 In this way, colonized environments were maintained and improved with products from remote parts of the world. Guano was one of several resources that caused the ‘opening’ of the Pacific region to neo-ecological imperialism, which at the same time was behind historical transformations in places like Great Britain and the USA. In this article, it is possible to see how Patagonia and the Malvinas/Falkland Islands were also ‘opened’ up and transformed under these imperialist operations, functioning as an appendage region to the Pacific. The extraction of guano in Patagonia was closely related to other extractive frontiers, such as whale, seal and penguin hunting, which regional history has barely approached. With some exceptions, Patagonian historiography focuses on human societies and economies based on hunting or herding terrestrial animals. 7 Moreover, the region's maritime history has been mostly approached with regard to its ‘discovery’ and the famous figures visiting it, such as Captain FitzRoy and the naturalist Charles Darwin. Only in the last 30 years has it been considered from other aspects. 8 Additionally, the history of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is usually studied from the sovereign problem between Great Britain and Argentina, which often hinders the analysis of other issues. 9 Reconstructing a piece of the Patagonian guano history makes it possible to address a regional social history and the imperial gaze that distant metropolises focused on the territory, with public and private interests.
In the nineteenth century, both Chile and Argentina laid claim to the Atlantic coast of Patagonia. Nevertheless, for the most part, its population was aboriginal and autonomous. At the same time, the coastline faced economic conquests by different companies and agents dedicated to extracting coastal resources such as guano and seal skins. Moreover, the officials from distant nations played different roles, seeking to facilitate the circulation of guano to their countries. These coastal resources were extracted between 1840 and 1870, while the political situation in the continent's interior allowed the ships and coastal settlements involved in extraction practices to proceed without the need of permits.
By mid-century, the Argentine Confederation (the emerging modern Argentine state) was going through a period of political instability, with civil wars and conflicts. Additionally, it did not possess a naval power that was capable of regulating any coastal or maritime exploitation. Carmen de Patagones in northern Patagonia was its only coastal settlement, as Argentina lost control of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands to the British in 1833 (the conflict over the sovereignty of the archipelago continues to this day). On the other hand, Chile maintained political stability thanks to the institutional continuity of a conservative government. Towards 1840, with the start of steam navigation, Chile's attention turned southward to the Strait of Magellan, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. 10 The situation of the Patagonian coast was uncertain. In 1843, Chile founded Fuerte Bulnes in the Strait and, by 1848, had also founded the nearby colony of Punta Arenas. In the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the British authorities moved the administration from Port Soledad/Louis to Port Stanley in 1845 due to the maritime advantages of this location. The settlers on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands used, among other things, the coastal resources for the production of penguin oil or sealing. The latter took place not only in the archipelago but also in continental Patagonia. Only in 1862, following the Battle of Pavón, did the Argentine Confederation become more stable and, in the following decades, it expanded effectively towards Patagonia. In an area where sovereignty was not exercised and limits were not established, Patagonian guano (along with other resources) was the object of inter-imperial conflict.
Patagonian species and exploitation
Patagonia has a large and diverse coastline that offers many suitable breeding sites for seabirds. Currently, few seabirds are seriously under threat; however, they are vulnerable to some of the fast-growing economic activities in the region due to their demographic characteristics and colonial habits. 11 Current and past threats include pollution, fisheries, human disturbance, guano harvesting and the introduction of alien species. It is unknown how the historical guano extraction affected the bird population, especially considering that it was carried out alongside the production of penguin oil. How the extraction worked or which birds were affected are issues that have been mostly unexplored.
Little has been written about the bird species that produced guano in Atlantic Patagonia. 12 In 1861, the chemist Faustino Malaguti from Rennes published an analysis of the chemical composition of different types of Patagonian guano. 13 The product had been shipped to Le Havre since at least 1850, 14 so it is no surprise that it received attention from the French Academy of Sciences. The types of guano analysed were categorized as shag, lion, penguin and càrriere or ‘quarry’ guano. The description of these categories allows us to establish a broad overview of the exploitation of guano.
Shag guano was extracted from Shag Island (48° 7′ 0″ S, 65° 54′ 0″ W), an island described as inhabited exclusively by cormorants (it is currently populated by a colony of imperial shags). 15 This guano island was visited by the Cestus of Hull, England, returning with a cargo of guano in 1846. 16 The guano analysis indicated that the Patagonian shag's guano had as much nitrogen as Peru's ‘good guanos’. The processing of this product was not described. Shag guano was probably the guano of the Leucocarbo atricepts or imperial cormorant. In 1882, this species, going by the name of Phalacrocorax arunculatus, 17 was considered the ‘guano bird of the Atlantic’ and was possibly the most abundant source of fertilizer in the region. 18 Currently, the imperial cormorant’s breeding distribution ranges from 43° S on the Atlantic coast, including the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, and surrounds the South American tip to 37° S on the Pacific coast. 19 Guano from these birds is harvested by extracting their nests and the upper layer of guano, and is abundant in the breeding areas. 20 Imperial cormorants’ nests are mainly located at ground level. The guano of other cormorants might have been exploited, though it is unlikely since they nest in places or ways that are not favourable for mining. The Neotropic cormorant nests in branch structures, whereas the red-legged shag and rock shag nest on cliffs. The Guanay cormorant – the most important of Peru's guano-producing birds – is scarce in Patagonia. 21 It is known that in the last third of the twentieth century, this species had at least three colonies in the Atlantic constituted by a small number of nests. Their numbers have decreased since that time because of, among other things, species hybridization with the imperial cormorant. 22 However, it cannot be ignored that the Guanay cormorant might had more significant populations on the Patagonian coast in the past, or that its guano was exploited.
The rest of the guano samples analysed by Malaguti were extracted from Pingüino Island (47° 54′ 00″ S, 65° 43′ 00″ W), which was frequented by guano vessels between 1850 and 1882. The lion guano was found among the debris of sea lions, in the cavities of the rocks where these animals died or spent the time they lived out of water. The samples were described as a cluster of amphibian bones, hairs, scales, fish bones and humic-looking pellets containing many small, needle-like crystals. Its processing was described as rough sieving. The fact that subsequent literature has not considered this source of fertilizer suggests that lion guano was probably not widely used. 23
Penguin guano covered the ground in a thick, tough layer. Its processing involved breaking the layer with a pickaxe and piling the pieces in heaps, which were left for four to five months to ferment. To complete the drying process, the piles were then broken up in the morning and built up again in the evening for four to five days. The remaining pieces were broken up with pestles and sifted. It was probably the guano of the Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellenicus) or the rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) that was used. The Magellanic penguin is currently widely distributed in Atlantic Patagonia, from the Valdés Peninsula (42° S) to the Beagle Channel (54° S). As for the rockhopper penguin, its numbers are smaller, breeding only in the Pingüino and Estados islands. 24
Finally, quarry guano was described as forming a layer of varying thickness, which was almost always covered by another layer of gravel that was sometimes one metre thick. Quarry guano had the consistency of a plastic paste and was so strong that it could be used as mortar in masonry. Its processing was the same as that of penguin guano, though it took three months for it to be dry enough to be sieved and shipped. Sailors believed that this guano was old penguin guano that had been modified over the centuries. Malaguti considered this possible since the quarry guano shared chemical properties with the penguin guano. As it was found under geological strata, the mining of quarry guano would have required more laborious ‘quarry’ work than gathering fresh guano produced by living colonies of marine birds.
The shipping register of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands shows that the British colony of Port Stanley received ships connected to the regional exploitation of guano. These records were made by the British authorities from 1842 and have been transcribed and uploaded on the Jane Cameron National Archives website. 25 From a total of 4,048 entries made between 1846 and 1911, I found that 144 were related to guano extraction, declaring guano in the cargo or mentioning the product as the purpose or destiny of the voyage; 119 of these records reported navigating towards or from the Pacific Ocean, mostly Callao, Valparaiso or the Chincha Islands. The destination or provenance of five records could not be established. Twenty other records were connected to the regional guano extraction through the shipping register, and eight more were linked to it through the document survey. Figure 1 indicates the locations where the historical guano extraction was identified.
References to guano exploitation in Atlantic Patagonia (1840–1880).
The exploitation of guano, like other extractive activities, implied demands on a limited resource, which was indiscriminately exploited, and displacement to new areas when the resource was depleted. The harvesting of and digging for guano probably impacted the seabirds’ historical breeding distribution and numbers. It is unknown to what extent the guano birds recovered; nonetheless, various historical guano-extraction locations maintain colonies of some species. Such is the case of the imperial cormorant in the islands of Quintano, Leones (Santa Cruz River), Monte León, Goicochea/New Island (the Malvinas/Falkland Islands) and Chato Islet. 26 Likewise, there are penguin colonies in the Tova and Leones islands (San Jorge Gulf), Leones Island(Santa Cruz River), and Pingüino and Monte León islands. 27
In Table 1, the exploitation is detailed, with the years when it took place and the ships related to each location. There were isolated episodes of guano exploitation that did not involve settlements. In other areas – probably where guano was more abundant – settlements were founded and functioned over years and even decades. In some cases, workers moved from their settlements to other islands to continue exploiting the guano.
Guano extraction in Patagonia.
Source. Summary by the author of information in the primary sources and literature used for the purpose of this article (see footnotes throughout the text).
Guano exploitation appears to have started in earnest in around 1845. In January 1846, a hurricane caused disastrous losses on the Patagonian coast, including the wreckage of several ships. At the time, it was estimated that no less than 300 ships from different seaports in England, Scotland, Ireland, France and other foreign countries were searching for ‘guano and other valuables’ 28 between the latitudes 44° 30′ S and 45° 30′ S. In February of the same year, other news reported that the brig Norna (Captain Wallace) had loaded guano on an island in Port Melo. Two vessels were at the island when she arrived, while about 14 ships were actively loading when she set sail. 29
The history of the Tova and Leones islands regarding guano deposits exposes the extent and logistical complexity of guano settlements, and the competition over the resource. 30 In 1851, the firm Sergent et Cie from Le Havre founded a settlement in Tova Island. 31 By 1857, 16 people were reported to be working in this settlement, most Bretons. 32 They worked alternate seasons producing penguin oil in Leones Island and extracting guano in Tova Island. An English settlement was reported in Leones Island as well, with 17 workers. American vessels were also involved in the distribution of the product. 33 In 1858, another company, Léger et Cie, sent an expedition from Le Havre to Tova Island on the vessel Ferdinand (Captain Beaugrand). 34 It included 14 or 15 workers and supplies to prepare and load guano. The operations were carried out under Captain Daniel, who had previously worked for Sergent et Cie. Predictably, there were disputes between the companies involved, which will be addressed later. In 1863, a letter from an Argentine sailor was forwarded to the Argentine president describing the Patagonian coast and reporting the settlements in Leones Island. He wrote about a French settlement under Captain Lanaud (Sergent et Cie) and an English settlement (Sres. Smith y Ca. from Montevideo). 35 In 1878, a different company from Le Havre, Maison Boissère, was involved in guano extraction and penguin-oil production in Leones Island. An American company was also reported working in Tova Island, though was planning to abandon it soon. 36 The previous companies appeared to have gone.
Guano settlements gathered together a workforce that was capable of inhabiting the territory for a prolonged period of time. These workers dug up, sieved and dried the guano so that the ships that reached the region could load it already processed, 37 or their crews became involved in a process that was partially completed. 38 The workers came from different countries (Uruguay, England and France, among others). Their work conditions were exceedingly difficult as the waters around some of the guano islands were difficult to navigate, and some seabirds nested in steep places that were hard to access. Moreover, the workforce needed provisions and equipment, so vessels transported livestock and provisions to the settlements. Simple tools, such as pickaxes, shovels, wheelbarrows, sifters and other instruments, were brought in to produce the penguin oil. There were also wagons and cargo animals to load the product in some cases. The settlements required buildings for the workers to live in, to store feed and products, and to keep the stock. The documentation describes cabins, sheds, ovens, corrals, constructions to produce penguin oil and even rudimentary structures to load the ships.
These activities transformed the coastal landscape with their extraction practices and buildings, and possibly the introduction of new species. Figure 2 shows the silhouette of the guano settlement in Leones Island (Santa Cruz River) in 1849, as seen from the schooner General Morgan. 39 In the illustration, a flag has been hoisted on a mast. This flagbelonged to the ship Ariel 40 that was wrecked in Cape Vigía. 41 Five structures can be recognized in the drawing. A visit to the settlement described a cottage for the foremen, a house for workers, a shed, a hog pen and a large stone oven. 42 It was not clarified whether the oven was used for cooking or processing a product. The drawing, made on board the schooner General Morgan, was found in the logbook of the Hannibal’s voyage. The complete page contains a reference to the General Morgan, the date and the topographical profiles of Cape Froward, Cape Virgins and Cape Gregory in the Strait of Magellan.
Guano settlement in Sea Lion Island (Santa Cruz).
As mentioned above, guano settlements required ships to transport the guano and provide for the workers. The documentation surveyed suggests that the workers were all men and that no families were taken to the guano islands. These were not colonies but extractive points dedicated to processing and loading guano, rather than adapting to the environment, thriving in the region or becoming self-sufficient. If provisions did not arrive, the situation could become precarious. In 1849, after a ship that provided for the Leones Island settlement had been absent for a couple of months, the men began to contract scurvy. This created tension between the foremen and the workers, who almost committed mutiny. The workers intended to go to the shore to hunt guanacos but failed, possibly because of their lack of experience with the prey and the territory. Even though the workers had lived in the region for months or even years, this episode suggests that they were unfamiliar with the territory.
Native people could be hostile towards guano workers or guano ships. In 1847, the British brig Avon (Captain John Eaton) was in Patagonia ‘looking for minerals’ and undertook a contract to carry some cargo (most probably guano) from Cape Vigía. 43 On the way, the Avon entered the Santa Cruz River on 3 May, where Captain Eaton had previously communicated with native people (probably Tehuelches). There, they encountered a party to exchange horses and, while making the bargain, some of the crew went ashore and they let five Indians come on board. What happened is unclear, 44 but the Indians attacked the sailors on land and on board, killing the captain and around eight more men. They plundered the ship, kept four prisoners and let the rest go. Two years later, in 1849, Leones Island (Santa Cruz River) workers also reported receiving a hostile visit from a party of native people, 45 possibly enabled by one of the guano workers’ boats, since there is no historical evidence that the Tehuelches practised navigation on their own. A couple of months later, a party of Tehuelches arrived near this same establishment with an American prisoner, Benjamin Franklin Bourne. They had held Bourne captive for 97 days when they arrived at the north bank of the Santa Cruz River. 46 According to Bourne, this was the same party who had killed Captain Eaton and his crew some years earlier. The Tehuelches told Bourne that it was possible to get alcohol, tobacco, yerba mate, flour and rice on the guano island. They tried to use Bourne to get these items and, after several attempts to get the guano workers’ attention, a boat came nearby. From a distance, they denied Bourne and the Tehuelches a pass to the island, arguing that the latter were ‘bad fellows’. Bourne asked to be taken alone, which was allowed, and he escaped from the natives as he got into the boat. While the natives could obtain valuable products from the guano settlements, their presence could threaten the guano workers.
In 1865, when a Welsh colony began to settle in Patagonia, some of the settlers were reported to be collecting guano ‘under a Spaniard’ who had been engaged for five months to direct the emigrants in this employment’
47
. It was documented that the natives have acted savagely to the portion of the Settlement collecting guano. This incident, however, was scarcely documented by a newspaper quoting from letters from the settlers, and different discussions in Welsh newspapers gave an account of an issue regarding the authenticity of such letters, emphasizing that the settlers ‘had not stirred up the guano at all’.
48
A letter published in 1866 supports this version of events: Some of the settlers have visited a number of guano islands which lie within easy reach of the colony, and have seen the guano, but as it varies greatly in quality, even on the same spot, it will be necessary to employ men well acquainted with it to superintend the selection and loading of a cargo.
49
Guano connections
Tracing the locations of guano exploitation and their connections is complex, as the history of Patagonian guano appears to be predominantly cosmopolitan. Table 1 indicates connections with the port of Le Havre and, at a more regional level, Montevideo and Port Stanley in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. Montevideo was where the guano arrived from the Leones and Tova islands. 51 Moreover, different guano-settlement authorities (Matthew S. White from Leones Island in Santa Cruz in 1849 and Henry Powell from Cape Vigía and Pingüino Island in 1852) also travelled to Montevideo during their exploitation work. This port appears to have been a logistical and directive node in the network of guano extraction. Montevideo was, at the time, the capital of the Eastern State of Uruguay (now Uruguay). In the nineteenth century, this country was experiencing political instability and wars, much like Argentina. Montevideo's port had privileged geographical conditions and global trade connections that were convenient for the guano trade. Moreover, there was no claim towards the southern territory from Uruguay that could trouble Patagonian guano arrivals.
The anchorages made in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands (1848–1859) involved dealings with the coastal guano settlements, indicating, on occasion, active participation in guano exploitation by the islands’ inhabitants. Such activity was more predominant between 1851 and 1856, when most of these anchorages occurred. At least eight anchorages overall were registered in Port Stanley to seek water, refreshments and beef for guano workers. 52 Some of these voyages came from New Island, of the Malvinas/Falkland archipelago, where this activity occurred under the authorization of the colonial authorities through licenses and taxes. 53 Other voyages came from guano islands close to the continent or continental points. The Ariel and the Margaratha (Captain Matthew S. White), consigned to the Leones Island settlement(Santa Cruz River), travelled to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands in 1848 and 1851 to get provisions. 54 The Tervia or Zerviah travelled in 1850 and 1851 to obtain water and other supplies for the ‘Watchman Cape’ settlement in present-day Cape Vigía. The Governor Moody also went towards Watchman's Cape to supply beef and other provisions to the English guano ships on the coast. Finally, the Victoria provisioned the Neal Dow, a vessel from the Falkland Island Company that was on the coast loading guano. The shipping register reveals that the colonial residents of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands profited from the activities on the continent and its nearby islands. However, the loading of guano was only declared in few opportunities, as when the Neal Dow went to the coast accompanied by the Fairy, which was also engaged in transportation of the product. Another record indicates that the Seventh of March, travelling under the Buenos Aires flag, arrived in Port Stanley on 19 July 1861 from Santa Cruz with a cargo of guano to sell. In general terms, guano extraction appears to have been an occasional activity for regional captains and vessels, as opposed to sealing, which features much more frequently in the shipping register of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
American vessels loaded guano in Cape Vigía and Pingüino Island on at least four occasions. Henry Powell, an Irishman, owned the settlements there. He was shipwrecked on an island (Chato Islet) in 1845, where, after finding guano deposits, he founded a settlement to exploit them. With this purpose, ‘he had taken possession of the island, obtained a working force from Montevideo, and was engaged in digging and curing the commodity for the loading of vessels’. 55 Having exhausted this location, Powell moved his operations to Pingüino Island in 1850. 56 In 1851, a schooner belonging to Powell sailed to Port Stanley to load ‘fifteen beeves’, which were taken to Pingüino Island and were ‘a cause of rejoicing to the one hundred and fifty men there employed’. 57 This number of men suggests that there was a large workforce at this settlement, though it possibly included the crews of the ships loading the guano. Even though Powell changed his location, the exploitation probably continued in Cape Vigía, as ‘Watchman's Cape’ is mentioned later in an advertisement for Patagonian guano in The American Farmer in 1858. 58 Powell does not appear to have counted on English or American support. He might have been the sole owner of his guano venture since the categories of ‘proprietor’ and ‘possession’ are repeated in the documentation related to him.
On the continent, there was also an interest in guano. In 1849, the leader of the Argentine Confederation, Juan Manuel de Rosas, discussed a guano contract with the House of Baring, which would liquidate the Argentine external debt (acquired in 1822) by leasing Patagonia and its products (specifically, guano). 59 In 1852, Rosas was defeated, and a new government took his place. Buenos Aires bondholders hoped that the new government would renew Rosas’ promises. However, the province of Buenos Aires did not recognize the new government and separated from the Argentine Confederation between 1852 and 1862, which ruined the prospect of a settlement of the Argentine debt. Guano was also discussed by Buenos Aires officials and authorities, mainly because of the complaints of Nicolás Calvo.
Calvo was designated consul of France by the Argentine Confederation in 1852. After the province of Buenos Aires declared secession that year, Calvo resigned from the Confederation and continued only to represent Buenos Aires in Paris. He frequently reported on the unloading of Patagonian guano at the port of Le Havre. 60 He was concerned about the lack of taxation and the normalization of these ‘clandestine’ coastal activities in Patagonia, in which he observed a loss of significant capital for the government. In his letters to his superiors, he suggested measures to confiscate guano shipments brought to Le Havre and the decree of laws regulating the activity. He reported the names of ships, estimates of the number of workers on the Patagonian coast, the amounts of guano extracted and foreign companies’ profits through this trade. Additionally, Calvo proposed guano as a guarantee for loans from European banks, first to the Argentine Confederation and then to the state of Buenos Aires. To this end, he discussed the possibility of a loan from the London bankers Charles Devaux and Co. of 40 or 50 million francs, at an annual interest rate of five per cent. 61 He addressed different state authorities regarding this matter between 1852 and 1853, receiving no response, either positive or negative, due to political instability. At that time, the Rio de la Plata was distant from the Patagonian territory in political and economic terms, except for the settlement of Carmen de Patagones at the north of the Atlantic. The Argentine Confederation and Buenos Aires aspired to this territory and the Patagonian guano with intentions as imperialist as those of the North Atlantic empires, although defended by sovereign claims. While Calvo complained about the French extraction and considered concrete ways of using the Patagonian guano on behalf of Buenos Aires, officials from other countries were also interested in the regional deposits.
On 8 July 1852, the Count of Malmesbury, secretary of the British Office of Foreign Affairs, instructed Captain Gore, his correspondent and representative in the Rio de la Plata, to obtain information about the guano deposits in the Patagonian islands and on the continent: It is known that a large supply of this fertilizing substance is to be found, not only upon the islands off the coast of Patagonia but also on the mainland itself; and as the appropriation of such a supply would be of the highest importance to this country, I have to instruct you to make the closest inquiries as to the exact localities where it exists, and as to the quantity and quality of it in those localities, and to report fully to me on these points.
62
As instructed, Gore made inquiries through at least two expert informants in the region: Luis Vernet, who promoted and founded the colony of Port Soledad in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands under the Rio de la Plata government in the 1820s, 63 and James Harris, a sealer and merchant who years earlier had assisted Captain FitzRoy in surveying Patagonia. 64 Both informants indicated that most of the guano deposits were exhausted. Harris wrote back to Gore, pointing out that the deposits in Pingüino Island had some guano left, and that in the Tova and Leones islands, some deposits remained unexploited. 65 Harris believed that this guano was of inferior quality and that ships had been avoiding it since there was two feet of ground above the excrement. The sealer suggested that Gore meet Powell, who was in Montevideo at the time and could be a good informant. However, a day after writing this letter, Harris wrote to Gore again, mentioning that he encountered Powell's butler, who told him that Powell had gone back to Patagonia. The butler had said that the guano in the Tova and Leones islands was unavailable since a French company had already shipped large cargos to Montevideo. He also stated that the guano in Pingüino Island was exhausted, and companies were ready to abandon the coast. However, Vernet supplied other information, pointing out that every guano deposit on the Patagonian coast was exhausted except for that in the island of Oso Marino Bay (Pingüino Island), where, on removing the guano, another deposit had been found beneath a stone stratification (possibly the quarry guano). 66 The latter information was probably correct since, between 1852 and 1856, there were anchorages declared in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands destined for or coming from Oso Marino Bay. By the mid nineteenth century, different governments seemed to be advancing by groping around in the dark over the coastal activities that operated in Patagonia. Knowledge of the guano deposits required the intelligence of local agents. At the same time, those involved in the extraction of guano needed to avoid paying taxes on their activities. Malmesbury and Gores’ manoeuvres open the question about the British government's role in Patagonian guano exploitation. It remains to be determined if these inquiries were related to the fact that, years later in 1857, an English settlement operated in Leones Island, exploiting the guano deposits there.
The US government was informed about Patagonian guano extraction by William H. Smiley, an American sealer and commercial agent in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
67
Smiley reported that after the French brig George wrecked on the coast of Pingüino Island in 1860, the captain and some of the crew stayed there to obtain a cargo of guano. He also informed that Captain Nichols, an American, was found alone on a small island in Santa Cruz River (probably Leones Island), exploiting the product. Additionally, he wrote that some English vessels took all the guano from Captain Nichols while he was off Leones Island at 45° S (San Jorge Gulf). This case was left to Mr Gayle, the US consul in Montevideo. As it is discussed below, the absence of regional authorities capable of normalizing guano extraction could result in these types of incidents and thefts among guano workers. Finally, Smiley reported on English and French activity in the region: There are several French establishments on the coast of Patagonia and one English; and the French give them every assistance in their power. They send a vessel-of-war every little while. The English are now doing the same, and I expect ere long there will be some difficulty between them.
French war vessels did indeed visit the Tova and Leones islands regularly. The warship Beaumanoir visited the settlement in 1856 and 1861. The cruiser Le Forbin also travelled to the Tova and Leones islands in 1876, following which its officers produced a detailed hydrographical survey of the islands and the San Jorge Gulf. 69 During one of the Beaumanoir's visits, its commander, Dupin, mediated in a conflict between Sergent et Cie and Léger et Cie. These companies clashed repeatedly in the French courts. The first complaint about the theft of guano, which had already been dug up and processed, was raised in the commercial tribune of Le Havre in August 1860 by Léger’s son. 70 This complaint resulted in a counterclaim by Sergent et Cie regarding their rights to work the guano of Tova Island. In his mediation, Dupin concluded that Sergent et Cie had the right to exploit the guano deposits. However, a trial took place in January 1862 where it was resolved that Sergent et Cie pay Léger. One of the reasons for this was that the ‘desert island’ of Tova belonged to the state of ‘Buenos-Ayres’ and Sergent et Cie did not present a title or an act assigning freely or for a fee the right to exploit the guano. Consequently, they could settle there only ‘thanks to a tolerance’, which could be extended to those who succeeded them. 71 Therefore, the ‘temporary possession’ by Sergent et Cie could not prevent the exploitation of guano by other workers. The French court recognized that the islands belonged to Buenos Aires, and there was a notion of the irregular exploitation activities on this foreign territory, which were treated in terms of ‘tolerance’. This reinforces the hypothesis that guano settlements did not attempt to settle on the territory with colonial aspirations but that they were rather extractive points founded with the sole goal to exploit regional resources.
A new trial took place in 1862 between Léger's son and Captain Lanaud, 72 who was allegedly responsible for the theft in Tova Island in 1860, and for thefts in the ‘Baie des Grottes’ (toponomy not identified) and Port Melo in 1861. This second trial indicates that the Leones workers circulated among the nearby guano islands and did not limit their work to the Tova and Leones islands. Léger's son claimed the value of 460 tons of processed guano and other expenses and damages. Despite Lanaud's defence affirming that he and his workers had previously worked the deposits, the court favoured Léger, considering that the company had the right to work in the guano islands, and sentenced Lanaud to pay the losses incurred. The documentation of this second trial delves into the rights to exploit a ‘desert island’ and the rights of the first occupant. Among other issues, it was considered that it was not necessary to occupy a territory to exploit the guano, but only to modify the original state of the ground. Consequently, every other exploiter could work on part of the guano from a place that had not been previously worked. These debates and controversies regarding the legal rights of French citizens to exploit marine resources in ‘desert locations’ are understandable with the emerging doctrine of terra nullius and considering that, years before in 1856, the USA had passed the Guano Islands Act to empower American citizens to temporarily claim uninhabited guano islands around the world.
As mentioned above, in 1863, the English settlement in Leones Island was identified as belonging to Sres. Smith y Ca. from Montevideo. This was probably the same company (Smith Bros. and Co. from Montevideo) that, in 1859, had engaged in guano exploitation and penguin-oil production in New Island (the Malvinas/Falkland Islands). The New Island venture, however, seems to have failed. In 1861, when the French warship Beaumanoir visited the archipelago after being in Tova Island, its officials declared anchoring ‘To enquire regarding Mr. Smith's losses at New Island’. The Victor (Captain Bertin) anchored that same day from Tova Island, ‘To take away pots &c from New Island’ – possibly to take them to Tova Island. 73 These visits are the only indicators of any relationship between French extraction practices and the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. The French settlements appear to have been related mainly to the port of Montevideo.
In the last third of the nineteenth century, the emerging state of Argentina began to take an interest in the fishing and coastal resources of Patagonia, and attempts at regulating guano activities commenced. 74 In 1871, the National Congress voted in a law declaring that guano exploitation and extraction be permitted on the Patagonian coast and islands by paying for certain rights. Through this law, different licenses were extended. At times, permits were granted to agents already working on the guano islands. However, the permits were, in practice, impossible to monitor due to the Argentine lack of naval power. Moreover, the Argentine government had difficulties exercising its dominion over territory and resources that it was largely unaware of. In 1871, a concession was granted to José Sisco y Cía. to extract guano on an island that was supposed to be on the Atlantic coast. This concession was denied in 1872, as the island was found to be in the Strait of Magellan in front of the Punta Arenas settlement, a territory that was controlled by Chile. 75 On 2 September 1872, another license was extended to J. J. M. Lieste, ‘considering that he founded an establishment long ago’ in Quintana Island. 76 Also in 1872, President Juan Domingo Sarmiento granted permission for D. Duncan Mac-Donald to export guano from the ‘coast of Patagones’ in the southern latitudes 50° 21′, 50° 25′, 49° 16′, 49° 19′, 51° 36′, 50° 38′ and 51° 10′. The requested areas included the islands of Monte León, Cormoran Bank and Justicia I Bank, Deseada Island and possibly Leones Island or Pico Quebrado – places that were quite distant from ‘Patagones’. There was imprecision in the geographical knowledge of the territory on the part of the national authorities and a degree of geographical generality in the requests that were made and permits that were granted.
Not all of the guano ventures were successful. In 1871, the Welsh settlers of Patagonia also tried to extract guano. In that year, the Argentine vessel Chubut (state property that was consigned to the Welsh colony) was chartered by Lewis Jones (one of the colony's founders) for £300 a month to load guano for ‘a firm in Buenos Aires’. Jones personally guaranteed the wages of the colony workers who would load the guano onto the ship. After a few months of work, the main vessel of the venture, the Monteallegro, was wrecked, losing all the guano on board. Therefore, the product could not be reloaded onto the Chubut and taken to Montevideo. Jones considered that the wreck had been intentional to collect the insurance money, since the guano was of poor quality and its profits would not cover the expenses of the venture. In the end, he was forced to sell all his possessions to pay the settlers’ wages. 77
The Argentine authorities were aware of the flaws in their regulations, which lacked effective control measures. On 22 July 1872, a permit was extended to Julio Haase, a representative of the banking house Emile Erlanger & Co., to extract guano that had already been prepared and was ready to load in islands at 50° 20′ S (Monte León Island), 50° 10′ S (Leones Island, Pico Quebrado or Rincón del Buque, among others) and 48° 45′ S (Chato Islet), as well as several islands in Cameron Bay between 44° 50′ S and 45° 20′ S. 78 These guano rights were granted in exchange for Erlanger's services in representing the Argentine government by taxing vessels arriving in foreign countries with Patagonian guano. The aim was to look for those cargos that had not been already taxed in Argentine territory. To request the permit, Haase provided information on guano vessels that departed towards Europe without paying taxes, which the Argentine government valued since it did not know or have ‘the means of knowing by its own agents, in which places on the Patagonian coast there is guano’. 79 In this sense, the Argentine government appeared to be in a position where it had to trust information given by those who requested permits and paid taxes. However, the agreement with Erlanger was repealed in September 1872, as the Argentine government decided that, due to different events, surveillance of the guano deposits should be established by more effective and direct means. 80
Meanwhile, the Chilean state began to actively dispute the territorial claim of Patagonia, communicating to Britain that any expedition to the Patagonian islands and maritime coasts to extract guano or any other substances would be under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Chile. 81 Therefore, it rejected the concessions and licenses granted by Argentina. In 1876, the French vessel Jeanne Amélie was loading guano in Monte León Island with a permit from an Argentine consul in Uruguay. The news reached Punta Arenas, transmitted by a Tehuelche party, and the Chilean authorities sent the gunboat Magallanes to capture the Jeanne Amélie. While the vessel was being driven to Punta Arenas, a gale in the Strait of Magellan caused it to become stranded and it was wrecked. The incident made diplomatic relations with Argentina even more difficult. In November 1877, the Punta Arenas authorities became aware of ships loading guano in the islet off Monte León Island without their permission. The Magallanes went again to the Atlantic, where it captured the American vessel Devonshire, which had an Argentine permit to extract guano up to 51° S. This episode, coupled with the previous arrest, caused a stir in national public opinion. The Argentine government sent a squadron to the Santa Cruz River to occupy the southern bank. The national situation in each country gave rise to the Fierro–Sarratea pact in 1878, a temporary settlement whereby Argentina would exercise its jurisdiction on the Atlantic coasts and Chile on the coasts of the Strait of Magellan. 82 While this was the situation in the south, a significant conflict was taking place in the North Pacific. Chile's interests grew in the guano of the Pacific coast and the mineral rights of the Antofagasta region, which generated rivalries with Peru and Bolivia, respectively. A few months after the Fierro–Sarratea pact, the War of the Pacific (1879–1883) started. During the conflict, Chile performed various diplomatic manoeuvres so that Argentina would remain neutral, not allying with Bolivia or Peru, or taking over Patagonia. 83 As Chile attempted to get Argentina to ratify the Fierro–Sarratea pact, Argentina leveraged the situation. While negotiations were underway, Julio Argentino Roca advanced with the so-called ‘Conquest of the Desert’, securing the Argentine position onshore by installing two maritime subdivisions in Atlantic Patagonia. On 23 July 1881, the final treaty was signed with Chile. The latter, occupied with its confrontations in the North Pacific, gave up its aspirations over Atlantic Patagonia and part of Tierra del Fuego. 84
Argentina kept on trying to regulate the exploitation the Atlantic coast. By 1879, President Nicolás Avellaneda repealed the free exploitation and extraction law, deeming that it did not establish time limits, restrict the localities used or respect birds’ reproduction cycles. A report by the official Nicolás R. Dávila, visiting Monte León Island in 1880, predicted that the guano would soon be exhausted on the island, which would ultimately ‘save’ the government from very uncomfortable surveillance since, at the time, it was carried out ‘using decrees, without practical application’. 85 Ten years had passed since the first Argentine attempts to regulate the activity, without effective control of extraction practices. In 1880, the Argentine Congress passed another law prohibiting hunting, fishing and guano extraction on the Patagonian coast. The law aimed to establish adequate scientific knowledge to formulate regulations that were capable of reasonably administering marine resources. The attention of the Argentine state with regard to the Patagonian Atlantic coast shows a renewed interest in this regional coast and its resources. At the same time, the ‘Conquest of the Desert’ expanded towards the territory, and the aboriginal population lost its autonomy. By the end of 1880, however, more fishing and extraction licenses were authorized. In 1882, several agents of a Buenos Aires company were exploiting guano and fish oil in Port Deseado. 86
Conclusion
Guano was one of the most attractive coastal resources in Patagonia, and it played a part in the political and economic history of the region. The extraction of guano, along with other coastal resources, linked Patagonia with remote places across the globe. The information collected and analysed in this article shows how this activity functioned. Although historical guano extraction has been identified in 11 locations, it most probably extended to different islands in the area. This activity involved the disturbance of breeding colonies, and the building of settlements and stations, and possibly motivated the introduction of exotic species. Even though, today, the guano islands appear pristine and desolate, 87 with sparse or no human populations, the history of their exploitation and maritime connectivity indicates that they experienced diverse transformations.
The pursuit of guano involved state and non-state actors. Various ethnic groups and nationalities were involved, including French, English, American, Welsh, Breton, Argentine, Chilean and Uruguayan agents, acting as empire builders on the Patagonian maritime frontiers. The Tehuelche population interacted with the guano workers, at times resulting in conflict. French, English, American and Buenos Aires companies provided the capital for these ventures. Argentine and Chilean claims over the territory also operated from distant metropolises, attempting to make the territory profitable. However, the scarce naval resources and lack of information made it impossible for the Argentine authorities to regulate the activity, whereas the darkness surrounding the locations and extraction of guano deposits was convenient for guano companies and workers who had settled and worked in the territory.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who provided insightful comments that improved this article. The author also acknowledges Dr Pablo Yorio, whom she consulted regarding guano bird species, and Dr Marcelo Mayorga, who kindly provided one of the figures published here.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a fellowship granted by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), and the Project Estudio multidimensional de la población y el territorio en el Chubut y la Patagonia Central, financed and executed by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva from Argentina and the CONICET.
Notes
Author biography
Sofía Haller is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Instituto Patagónico de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas), Chubut, Argentina. Her doctoral thesis focused on the maritime history of Atlantic Patagonia between 1800 and 1914, attending to maritime connectivity and patterns of navigation, and how these may help explain the dispersion of species in the region from a historical perspective. Her research interests include the maritime connections between Patagonia and the rest of the world, the introduction of species, and the regional exploitation of guano, seals and whales.