I have just begun reading yet another book on artic exploration where the author drops a comment along the lines of “nobody really still believes that Robert Peary made it to the North Pole.” This attitude seems to have become the arctic version of PC. I’m not an expert on the subject, but what information I do possess leads me to believe that he almost certainly did make it.
As a side note, what is being taught in schools on this subject these days?
Ron
I don’t know what is being taught in schools, but…
I have to agree with the author of the book. Does anybody really still think that Toeless Rob Peary got there before Henson? Does anybody think that Hilary summited Everest before Norgay?
Peary and Hilary did “make it,” but they were preceded by their non-white helpers.
Actually, from a couple of articles and one book I’ve read, I would guess that Peary did not make it.
The pro evidence is basically that he said he was going to, he went out onto the ice cap, he came back and said he’d made it.
The con evidence:
He recorded amazing rates of travel for the conditions.
The longitude figures in his log are suspect from several different perpectives (and that close to the pole, any latitude reading must be cross identified to longitude to be accurate.
There are also a number of smaller inconsistencies in his report that make it look as though he was fudging the story.
In his defense, I would say that he might have convinced himself that he had made it, simply because he was not psychologically prepared to fail. That, however, does not change the facts that there are some very large gaps in his narrative.
I can’t remember where the cite is, I think it’s in National Geographic, but I’m not sure.
Anyway, a while back someone did an analysis of the photos that Peary took on the way to the pole. By looking at the angle and length of the shadows in the pictures and using some mathematics, it was demonstrated that those photos could only be taken (to produce those types of shadows) was if you were at a high enough latitude to be near (and AT) the north pole. So, yes, Robert Peary did indeed get to the north pole first.
No other explorer has provided substantiated evidence that they got there before him.
I’ve never heard anyone say that there was evidence for either Hillary or Norgay was first on Everest. Neither of them ever spoke of it. Cite?
The author suggests that Peary did not make it at all. This would mean that Henson did not make it either. You can’t have it both ways. I might add that the arguement that Henson arrived first depends upon the assumption that they traveled on an exact straight line to the pole; Henson being in front would therefore be the first man at the pole. This would seem to me to be somewhat unlikely on the face of it; and Pearys measurements indicated that they were still three miles short of the pole when they made their final Pole camp. I’m not quite quite certain what white versus non-white has to do with it.
The arguement about amazing speeds was first made when Peary returned from the north in 1909. The problem with this arguement is: amazing in comparison to whom? At that time there were only two major open ice dog sledding expeditions with which to compare Peary; Nansens expedition (1895?) and the Italian Cagni expedition (1899?). Both of these expeditions involved men who had zero experience with dog sleds prior to their expeditions. By contrast, Peary and Henson had two previous attempts on the pole and two major dog sled expeditions on Greenland. Their eskimo helpers had grown up with dog sleds.
Since that time, there have been at least two dog sled expeditions which have made times very similar to Pearys; the Steger expedition in 1986 and the Landry expedition in 1990(?).
Concerning longitude measurements; my understanding is that as one approaches the pole measurements of longitude become completely meaningless. Picture yourself at the pole, actually standing on it; at that point you are at all longitudes. Take one step away from the pole and you occupy perhaps 50 or 60 degrees of longitude. Navigation at the poles cannot be done in the same manner as navigation at the equator. But I must admit that here I am getting way out of my league.
Ron
I’ve done some climbing in Asia (two 8000’s) and from what I remember hearing/reading from other climbers/books, I believe it was actually Hilary who arrived atop the true summit first–just a few steps ahead of Tenzing Norgay–via the Southeast Ridge. In fact, it was Hilary, not Tenzing, who solved the crux of the 44-foot vertical face now known as the “Hilary Step.” Had it not been for his success, it’s possible Tenzing would never had reached the summit. (While atop the summit, Hilary peered down onto Mallory’s ill-fated north ridge route and pronounced it “unclimable.” It’s now the second most heavily traveled route to the summit.)
Regrettably, National Geographic has proven itself a less-than-objective governing body for deciding the North Pole issue. The emerging consensus is that neither Peary nor Henson actually reached the true north pole, although Henson may have gotten somewhere within a few thousand yards. IOW, the true North Pole was not reached until, IIRC, the 1960s–and then by snowmobile.
Well, I’ll agree that virtually everybody agrees (so far) that Plaisted made it to the pole by snowmobile in 1968(?). But this has little or no bearing on Pearys claim. As for the rest of your statement, I must admit that this is the first time that I have seen the suggestion that Henson got closer to the pole than Peary. I have often seen the suggestion that Henson arrived first; though as I have stated previuosly I don’t find that argument tenable. But given their actions at the pole camp; Henson remaining in camp while Peary scouted about for miles in all directions, it strikes me as unlikely that Henson would somehow come closer to the actual pole than Peary.
For the record: Peary never claimed to have located the pole as an exact point. Given the technology of the day, it would have taken him years to do so. Amundsen never claimed to have located the South Pole to that degree. Peary basically claimed to have first taken measurements a few miles on one side of the pole, then to have moved to a position a few miles on the other side of the pole; and then to have dog sledded in a willy-nilly fashion between those points such that the Pole was covered. Peary would have been the first to agree that, in all probability he was never “exactly” at the pole.
Ron
Can’t provide the author/title, but the “definitive account” of the Peary issue was published about eight years ago.
I may have gotten some details wrong. My understanding was that, at one point, an ailing Peary stayed behind while Henson forged ahead, closing in on the pole. My understanding–perhaps from an urban legend, if you will–is that Henson did a good deal of the crucual polar exploration alone. Again, perhaps UL.
As an alpinist, I can only saw that if you don’t tag the summit, you can’t really claim to have “climbed” the mountain. Of course, peaks and poles are different, but getting “close” doesn’t seem right. It’s like Apollo 8 circling the moon but not landing. Because actually treading on the surface wasn’t technologically possible at that time, can the astronauts claim to have landed because the got closer than anyone else to that point? I’ll also say that I’ve read of a growing movement at National Geographic to concede that some of Peary’s claims were not 100% factual.
USS Nautilus reached the Pole in 1958. If a snowmobile expedition 10 years later counts, so should a submarine trip.
I always understood that Hillary and Tenzing agreed to claim publicly that they reached the summit of Everest simultaneously, in recognition of their partnership and the struggle they each went through. That doesn’t stop Westerners from lionizing Hillary while Asians worship Tenzing, naturally.
Speaking as only one Westerner, I think both were the bee’s knees. All of my climbing friends know and respect both of them.
Absolutely agreed, but still … In the early 1980s, the BBC TV children’s programme Record Breakers conducted a filmed interview with Hillary. Having touched on the point about them having agreed not to talk about who was first, the interviewer (the late Roy Castle, as I remember it; hardly the most penetrating interrogator of all time) did manage to elicit from him an acknowledgment that he was actually first. I don’t recall the exact form of words or the gesture, but a Big Thing was made at the time about it. The accompaning explanation about why the famous photograph shows Tenzing on the summit was that Hillary had the camera and Tenzing had never used one before.
If anybody knows that I’m misremembering the episode or that Hillary subsequently retracted, then I’d be grateful. Frankly, I’ve grown to trust my childhood memories of what I saw on TV …
Peary’s post expedition behavior was also very suspicous- he made no claims to have actually reached the Pole until Doctor whathisname claimed that he had reached the Pole. The other dude still has some supporters.
I was also struck by Green Bean’s post. What is the significance of them being preceded by their non-white helpers. Green, are you commenting on the physical endurance or prowess of “non-whites”? Maybe something on the lines that “non-whites” make better mountain climbers or arctic trekkers but not good swimmers or quarterbacks? Or maybe insinuating something nastier? Or are you a self-hating white ethnic? Or (my guess) a non-descript, generic PC’er?
If I recall correctly, the first men to climb Annapurna found that the peak consisted of a snow ledge which they felt would be unsafe. They nevertheless received credit for the climb.
I may be showing my age here, but I am of the opinion that the men of Apollo 8 were the first men to go to the moon. The men of Apollo 11 were the first to land and walk on the moon, but that in no way makes the men of Apollo 8 failures or frauds.
I believe that a better analogy would be Amundsen and the magnetic north pole. From about 1904 Amunsen spent somewhere between two to three years carefully locating the magnetic north pole. At the time he received considerable acclaim, honors, etc. Today we can locate the pole much more accurately than Amundsen did in 1904. Does this mean that Amundsen was actually a failure?
The North Pole can be thought of as either an exact point or as a somewhat ill defined geographical area. Pearys goal in 1909 was to reach the geographical area of the pole, he never had any intention of putting a pin in the ground to mark the exact location of the pole. Amundsen never claimed to have located the exact position of the south pole.
The argument that I’m concerned with is that Peary did not make it to pole as a geographical area. The arguments that I have seen take one of two forms; either Peary simply turned back and lied about arriving at the pole, or Pearys navigation was faulty/incompetent causing him to believe that he was at the pole when he was actually x miles away the pole. In the second case, the arguments which I am familiar with usually have Peary somewhere on the order of 30 miles or more from the pole. I believe that if someone wanted to argue that Peary was only one or two miles from the pole this would be dismissed as nit-picking.
Remember that the real importance in Pearys trip wasn’t reaching the pole, it was the knowledge gained on the way. Until Pearys trip it was still thought likely that that land would be discovered at the pole. Even six years after Pearys trip, Canada sponsored the ill fated Stefanson(sp?) expedition to look for a small continent between Alaska and the pole.
As for Henson; on the way to the pole Henson did in fact go in front and break the trail. Obviously this would be a very important role. When they reached the pole camp, however; Henson stayed in camp while Peary did the scouting. But I think that any attempt to argue that this person or that person actually got closer to the pole is a waste of time. Either the entire expedition made it to an area which can fairly be called the north pole or none of them made it.
Ron
For anyone interested in this topic, the best read I’ve had in years was Arctic Grail, which recaps the exploration of the North in fabulously entertaining detail. The last third or so of the book is dedicated to the race for the Pole, and includes all the specific data regarding Peary’s claimed travel rates, comparable rates for other expeditions, and so on. The author (Pierre Berton, IIRC) doesn’t explicitly claim to disbelieve Peary, but he gives the strong impression that the evidence is wanting, and he backs up the suspicion with original-source numbers.
In any event, I highly recommend the book. It’s imposingly huge, but I blew through it in less than a week.
I suppose I should keep my big fat mouth shut and let Green Bean speak for herself, but my interpretation is that it was a jab at the fact that for many years, the Western World only considered white people as “firsts”.
When I first learned about the Everest expeditions as a wee sprout, the only one that was spoken of was Hilary. I didn’t know Tenzing Norgay’s name until many many years later. The information was presented in such a way as to minimize any involvement by non-white people.
Tenzing Norgay was one hell of a climber. He was an old hand at Everest and a respected Sherpa by the time he and Hilary made their fateful summit bid. That said, Hilary’s role in ascending the Hilary Step cannot be taken lightly and, if you read his harrowing account of the last 100 meters, you’ll learn the two weren’t far from throwing in the towel and heading back to camp.
It’s true that the Sherpa have never been given their due as high-altitude climbers, and I think that’s what Green Bean is correctly referring to–that these brave men have lived and died making western climbers look God-like while they themselves have been completely marginalized by the western media (and by lots of western climbers, too). Fortunately, Tenzing’s son’s new book has done much to correct this injustice, but Sherpas die in complete obscurity every year and no one in the West so much as yawns. (BTW, it’s the same story with the Balti porters of K2 though, IMHO, they can be a fairly flaky lot at times. [Of course, so can K2.])
I’ve heard some fellow climbers–Dave Breashears, for one–say that the Sherpa are “not outstanding climbers.” Obviously, this is a reference to their not being outstanding technical climbers, which is true. The other side of the coin is that 90+ percent of the peak baggers who climb Everest today are in the same category and most have little respect for it.
Peary’s claim to have reached the vicinity of the North Pole is almost completely discredited. What’s worse, he probably knew he wasn’t going to reach the pole and intentionally set out to falsify a claim. His decision to send Robert Bartlett back before making his final run is highly suspicious; Bartlett was the expedition’s best navigator and would have been able to independantly corroborate or deny their location. With Bartlett gone, Peary was the only one left to take navigational readings.
Prior to Bartlett’s departure, the expedition had never managed more than twelve miles a day. Once he left, Peary’s records indicates they routinely exceeded twenty miles a day and sometimes reached daily distances in excess of fifty miles. Pointedly, while Henson did not have the skills to take exact readings, he did record that their travel was as difficult in the final run as it had been earlier.
As for the national Geographic Society, their endorsement is not unimpeachable. The Society funded Peary’s expedition and an examination of their review of Peary’s records clearly demonstrates they chose to endorse his record without even a minimum of skepticism. The three men chosen for the review board were personal friends of Peary’s and later admitted they were ready to declare Peary’s record “official” on the first day they met.