Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T17:15:40.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the Continental Shelf, and a New Arctic Continent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Trevor H. Levere
Trevor H. Levere
Affiliation:
Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War, roughly two hundred expeditions set out for what is now the Canadian Arctic, from its boundary with Alaska in the West, along the northern shore of Canada and including the Arctic archipelago between that shore and the pole, to the marine boundary with Danish Greenland in the East. For more than half a century, these expeditions were little concerned with Canada as a political entity; after all, it had not yet been truly created as a nation. Besides, science was a major part of the mandate of many of the Arctic expeditions, almost half of which achieved significant scientific results; and science, while partly a national activity, was also a trans-national one. John Franklin's last expedition, made famous by disaster, had, typically, been largely motivated by scientific curiosity; the resolution of geomagnetic questions loomed large in Franklin's instructions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 233 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Canada, 's Confederation was in 1867Google Scholar; see below.

2 Cooke, Alan and Holland, Clive, The Exploration of Northern Canada 500 to 1920, A Chronology, Toronto, 1978Google Scholar, gives a descriptive inventory with bibliography for these expeditions. For national attitudes to science during war at this time, see Beer, Gavin de, The Sciences Were Never at War, London, 1960Google Scholar. The wider and general context of the history of polar exploration may best be approached through Kirwan, L. P., The White Road, London, 1959.Google Scholar

3 Knight, D. M., The Nature of Science, London, 1976Google Scholar. The context and nature of science in the nineteenth century is also explored in Morrell, J. and Thackray, A., Gentlemen of Science. Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford, 1981.Google Scholar

4 A good example, until its recent emasculation by the sale of such works, was the Library of the Royal Institution of Great Britain.

5 Royal Society of London, Membership Certificates, 1820–1830, VII.

6 Thomson, G. M., The North-West Passage, London, 1975.Google Scholar

7 Markham, C. R., The Lands of Silence. A History of Arctic and Antarctic Exploration, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 237–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Ritchie, G. S., The Admiralty Chart. British Naval Hydrography in the Nineteenth Century, London, 1967.Google Scholar

9 Hattersley-Smith, G., ‘The British Arctic Expedition, 1875–76’ Polar Record, (1976), 18, pp. 17–26Google Scholar. Royal Society of London, Instructions for the Use of the Scientific Expedition to the Arctic Regions, 1875, suggested by the Arctic Committee of the Royal Society, London, 1875Google Scholar. The status of natural science and scientists in relation to voyages of discovery is mirrored in the earlier expedition of Charles Wilkes: see Wilkes, C., Narrative of the United States exploring expedition During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, Philadelphia, 1845Google Scholar, and Bixby, W., The forgotten voyage of Charles Wilkes, New York, 1966Google Scholar. Similarly T. H. Huxley was merely a self-educated naval surgeon when he served on H.M.S. Rattlesnake on the voyage that was to establish his scientific reputation (D.N.B).

10 Zaslow, M. (ed.) A Century of Canada's Arctic Islands 1880–1980. The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, 1981.Google Scholar

11 Stevenson, A., ‘Lawless land’, North, (1969) 16, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar

12 Low, A. P., Report on the Dominion Government expedition to Hudson Bay and the Arctic Islands on board the D.G.S. Neptune 1903–1904, Ottawa, 1906Google Scholar. Ross, W. G., ‘Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic; the Neptune expedition of 1903–4’, Arctic, (1976), 29, pp. 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 The general story of Stefansson and the Canadian Arctic Expedition has been admirably told by Diubaldo, Richard J., Stefansson and the Canadian Arctic, Montreal, 1978Google Scholar, and further illuminated by Hunt, William R., Stef. A Biography of Vilhjalmur Stefansson Canadian Arctic Explorer, Vancouver, 1986.Google Scholar

14 Canadian government interest came late; the interest of the fur-trading companies, and especially the Hudson's Bay Company, came much sooner. The HBC and its Canadian employees (voyageurs and Indians) provided essential logistical support for British naval expeditions, and carried out their own explorations; see, e.g., Newman, P. C., Company of Adventurers, vol. ii, Markham, Ontario, 1985.Google Scholar

15 Turner, G.L'E. (ed.) The Patronage of Science in the Nineteenth Century, Leyden, 1976Google Scholar explores how science acquires support, and what governments are willing to pay for.

16 Stefansson, V., ‘Solving the Problem of the Arctic. A record of five years' exploration’, Harper's Magazine, (1919), 138, pp. 577ffGoogle Scholar. at 579. The need for an international corps of scientists was probably the norm rather than the exception; the staff and publications of the Challenger expedition were by no means all British; see, e.g., Tizard, T. H., Narrative of the cruise of H.M.S. Challenger with a general account of the scientific results of the expedition, Edinburgh, 1885.Google Scholar

17 Canada. Department of the Naval Service, Reports of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913–18, 14 vols., Ottawa, 1920–1946Google Scholar. (Not published vols. 1;2;6 Pt.A; 7 Pt.M; 8 Pt.f;9 Pts.F, l, K; 10 pts.A, B. Still available from the National Museum of Natural Sciences, vols. 13 Pt.D; 14; 15 Pt.A.)

18 Mattila, Robert, A Chronological Bibliography of the Published Works of Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Dartmouth College Libraries, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1978.Google Scholar

19 Dartmouth College Library (henceforth DCL), Stefansson Correspondence Box 3.

20 DCL Stefansson MSS 98 (IV), 40, Faris, R. L. to Stefansson, V., 25 03 1918.Google Scholar

21 Newspaper clipping in DCL Stefansson MSS (98) VI. 15. The clipping is without date or place of publication, and I have failed to locate the paper from which it was taken.

22 DCL Stefansson Correspondence Box 15, 27 05 1926.Google Scholar

23 Ibid, Sherwood, to Stefansson, , 11 06 1926.Google Scholar

24 Harris, R. A.. ‘Evidence of Land Near the North Pole’, Report of the Eighth International Geographic Congress 1904 Washington, 1905, pp. 397–406Google Scholar. ‘The greater portion’ of the paper was published in the National Geographic Magazine for 06 1904, pp. 255–61.Google Scholar

25 Nansen, F., ‘Farthest North’ being the record of a voyage of exploration of the ship Fram 1893–96 and of a fifteen months' sleigh journey by Dr. Nansen and Lieut Johansen with an appendix by Otto Sverdrup Captain of the Fram …, 2 vols., London, 1897Google Scholar. Long, G. W. De. The Voyage of the Jeanette, 2 vols., Boston, 1884.Google Scholar

26 Ibid p. 399.

27 Stefansson, V., The Friendly Arctic, New York, 1922, p. viii.Google Scholar

28 Stefansson, to Borden, , 4 02 1913Google Scholar, Public Archives of Canada (henceforth PAC) MG 26H vol. 234, file RLB 2117, ff.130238–41.

29 7 February 1913 PAC MG 26H vol. 234 file RLB 2117 ff. 130245.

30 Stefansson had become a naturalized American subject when his family moved to the U.S.A. He would have needed to take the oath of Canadian naturalization to recover his Canadian status. Both countries have claimed or ignored him as it suited them.

31 Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, Cases, Counter-cases, Arguments, Atlases of United States and Great Britain, Washington, 1903 et seq.Google Scholar; Canada had made significant territorial concessions in the negotiations. Tompkins, S. R., ‘Drawing the Alaska boundary’, Canadian Historical Review, (1945), 26, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Armstrong, T. E., Russian Settlement in the North, Cambridge, 1965Google Scholar, and Golder, F. A., Russian Expansion on the Pacific 1641–1850, Cleveland, 1914Google Scholar give a general account of Russia's northern American ambitions.

33 King, W. F., Report Upon the Title of Canada to the Islands North of the Mainland of Canada, Ottawa, 1905, p. 8Google Scholar, cited in Diubaldo, (13), p. 5.Google Scholar

34 Harcourt, L., Downing Street, 10 05 1913Google Scholar, to the Officer Administering the Government of Canada, PAC MG 26H vol. 234, file RLB 2117, ff.130279–81.

35 Ibid, ff.130280–81.

36 Equivalent to Permanent Secretary in the British Civil Service.

37 Desbarats, G. J. to Stefansson, , Ottawa 29 05 1913Google Scholar, PAC MG 30 B40 vol. 1 file 13.

38 The Friendly Arctic (27), p. 517.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 97.

40 Anderson, R. M. to Johansen, F., 7 03 1913Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 1.

41 Anderson, to Johansen, , 15 03 1913.Google Scholar

42 Anderson, to Brock, , 7 03 1913Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 1; Stefansson, to Anderson, 24 03 & 5 04Google Scholar; Johansen, to Anderson, 14 04Google Scholar; Anderson, to Desbarats, G. J. 14 04Google Scholar; Johansen, to Anderson, 30 04Google Scholar; Stefansson, to Johansen, 3 05.Google Scholar

43 Johansen, to Anderson, 12 03 1913Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 1 file 9.

44 See, e.g., Great Britain Privy Council, Report of the Joint Committee Appointed by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and the Atlantic Telegraph Company to Enquire into the Construction of Submarine Telegraph Cables, London, 1861.Google Scholar

45 Thomson, W., ‘On deep-sea sounding by pianoforte wire’, Proceedings of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow (1875), 9, pp. 488–93Google Scholar; quoted in McConnell, , No Sea Too Deep. The History of Oceanographic Instruments, Bristol, 1982, p. 60.Google Scholar

46 McConnell, ibid., p. 70–71, and figs. 73, 74, and 75.

47 Anderson, to Johansen, 15 03 1913, loc. cit.Google Scholar

48 Stefansson, to Anderson, London 21 03 1913, loc. cit.Google Scholar

49 The Friendly Arctic (27), p. 30.Google Scholar

50 Loc. cit.

51 Stefansson, to Desbarats, 1 06 1913Google Scholar, PAC RG42 vol. 475 file 84–2–29.

52 See McConnell, (45), pp. 133–4.Google Scholar

53 McConnell, (45), p. 60Google Scholar discusses different kinds of sounding wire.

54 PAC MG30 B40 vol. 10, accounts for C. A. E.; Taffe, A. 5 06 1913Google Scholar & Stefansson, to Desbarats, , PAC RG42 vol. 475 file 84-2-29.Google Scholar

55 17 July 1913, PAC MG30 B66 vol. 1.

56 Chipman, K. G., private diary no. 1, entry 17 06 1913Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B66 vol. 1.

57 Bartlett, R., The Last Voyage of the Karluk, Boston, 1916Google Scholar, quoted in McKinlay, William Laird, Karluk. The great untold story of Arctic exploration, London, 1976, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

58 Stefansson, to Hazen, J. D., Minister of the Naval Service, 1 06 1913Google Scholar, en route to Victoria, PAC MG26H vol. 234 file RLB 2117.

59 Jenness, D. to Zedlitz, Von 16 10 1913Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B89 vol. 2; McKinlay, , op. cit. chaps 4 & 5.Google Scholar

60 Bartlett, R., diary, PAC RG42 vol. 475.Google Scholar

61 McKinlay, , op. cit. p. 38Google Scholar. They clearly did not have the steam sounding machine that Johansen had requested.

62 Stefansson, to Desbarats, , 30 10 1913Google Scholar, Barrow, DCL Stefansson MSS 98(IV)-1.

63 PAC MG30 B40 vol. 10.

64 Gray, D., ‘C.G.S. Alaska’, The Bulletin. Quarterly Journal of the Maritime Museum of British Columbia (1979) no. 43, pp. 19–22Google Scholar, no. 44, pp. 2–4, 12.

65 There are parallels with the place of science and scientists in Scott's last expedition, as well as marked differences. The case is controversially put in Huntford, R., Scott and Amundsen. The Race to the South Pole, London, 1979.Google Scholar

66 26 May 1913, PAC MG30 B66 vol. 1.

67 Desbarats, to Stefansson, 30 04 1914Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 2.

68 Brock, to Anderson, 7 05 1914Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 2.

69 Brock, to Stefansson, 7 05 1914Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 2.

70 Johansen, to Stefansson, 6 02 1914Google Scholar, Stefansson, to Johansen, 24 01 1914Google Scholar & 12 March 1914, DCL Stefansson MSS 98(IV)-3.

71 The problem is an old one; cf. the troubles between Edmond Halley and his officers—see Thrower, N. J. W., (ed.) The Three Voyages of Edmond Halley in the Paramore 1698–1701, 2 vols., London, 1981.Google Scholar

72 Chipman, to Brock, , 15 05 1914Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B66 vol. 1.

73 Desbarats, to Stefansson, 31 03 1914Google Scholar, DCL Stefansson MSS 98(IV)-2.

74 Stefansson, to Anderson, 6 04 1914Google Scholar, at sea, DCL Stefansson MSS 98(IV)-4.

75 ca. 1000 metres.

76 Gauge unknown, so length unknown; in deep soundings (> 1000 m) the wire broke under its own weight. Johansen had received approval for his request for 6000 fathoms of sounding wire (43).

77 Memorandum from O. E. LeRoy & W. H. Boyd to R. G. McConnell, Acting Deputy Minister, Department of Mines, 29 Oct. 1914, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 10.

78 Stefansson, , CAE diary no. 1, f.107, 29 06 1914Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B81 vol. 1.

79 Hunt, , Stef (13), p. 128.Google Scholar

80 Stefansson, to Borden, 21 06 1915Google Scholar, PAC MG26H vol. 185 file RLB529.

81 Storkerson, Storker T. in The Friendly Arctic (27) pp. 689–703.Google Scholar

82 Borden, in The Friendly Arctic (27) p. xxiv.Google Scholar

83 Anderson, to ?, 17 01 1916Google Scholar, PAC MG30 B40 vol. 2.

84 Interview with Christian Science Monitor 19 & 20 05 1919.Google Scholar

85 Hunt, W. R. (13) p. 1.Google Scholar