of the
North
is hard to tell, but slow growing lichen on its rocks indicate extreme age, perhaps in the
thousands of years. Experts tend to analyze sites like these and segment them according to
their particular identity. Attempts to estimate the history of the people of the Arctic brought the
migration wave theories. Paleo, Dorset and Thule migration waves came between 2300 BCE
and 1700 CE. These movements were proven according to particular characteristics found
within ruins, each migration carried a distinct culture creating artifacts easily distinguishable.
This historical point of view is not shared by most Inuit I've met. Their knowledge originates
from oral traditions passed on from one generation to the next. To Inuit, there is no equivalent
to the Dorset or Thule culture, most of Arctic ruined sites were created by their ancestors.
Somehow the archeological and Inuit oral perspective clash, and yet they are dealing with the
same thing. Franklin history is equally caught into this quagmire. Recent techno driven
searchers don't stand a chance to find anything unless they have accurate history to guide
them. Traditionalists who pursue Franklin through oral or written history are equally
handicapped, they need technology to confirm their findings as well. One group needs the
other, combined together the mystery will be resolved.
Back in 1859 Leoplold McClintock and Petersen his translator very nearly broke the back of
this mystery, was it not for the vast riches a beached ship provides, at least one Erebus or
Terror's final location would have been known. From Voyage on the Fox:
"After much anxious inquiry we learned that two ships had been seen by the natives of King
William's Island; one of them was seen to sink in deep water, and nothing was obtained from
her, a circumstance at which they expressed much regret; but the other was forced on shore
by the ice, where they suppose she still remains, but is much broken. From this ship they
have obtained most of their wood; and Ootloo-lik is the name of the place where she
grounded" page 227...
Only with the help of a local elder from the Netsilig-miut dialect will this word be understood
(only if Petersen got it right). But in Greenlandic it means red twilight as on the Greenlandic
flag. In North Baffin it could mean Ootroolik or something tilting on its side. Many, even
Rasmussen thought that Ootloolik was Utjulik, as of the people once living by Oreilly Island,
nowhere near where McClintock was when he wrote this account.
boat was taken to England for a C14 analysis. The results were stunning (and not publicized).
It seems that an archeologist hunch was right, the piece was dated to the 12th century! This
would indeed be a great discovery, imagine 12th Century explorers from Europe just stum-
bling their way to North America by way of the Arctic. Unfortunately, C14 analysis have not
been known to be very accurate in peculiar cases. It could be that this sample was diluted
by water (remember the whaler lies in a small creek , wood is being leached yearly), or the
original wood was contaminated by industrial revolution pollution (changing carbon14 to
carbon ratio).
Oral evidence is more relevant but very scarce, it seems that this whaler had no previous
owner except for those who took its wood. This suggests that the original owners left it there,
eventually with time and especially with this case location, the wood rotted by water, and got
a beating from polar bears as these animals relish a scratch or two on wood. Explaining this
ruined whaler is difficult:
It was suggested that Franklin may have decided to leave this whaler with supplies on
purpose as they were heading South towards their besetment destiny. It was proposed that
it was taken by Inuit from one of the several abandoned ships during the Franklin search era
(1848-1859). But Inuit would have never abandoned such a treasure. A northern retreat of a
group from beset Erebus and Terror is a plausible theory originally proposed by the Lady
Jane Franklin 1993 memorial expedition.
Another theory was proposed by a local Inuk hunter, one of a few with the highest active
knowledge of the central Arctic Archipelago area. The whaler came from a nearby sinking
ship. It is a theory which fits with a North Baffin story telling the same thing. In this story the
survivors erected broken masts by sea shores. These masts were eventually used as fuel.
Both preceding theories may be validated. However the lack of garbage and or solid
take much from a fast sinking ship! If so, there is no doubt that the submerging
occurred in late August early September, the whaler was placed very high above
sea level and this can be only done with many strong men or a few with the help
of ice.
of its components have been washed away to sea, this whaler is at least 150 years old, one
can only imagine how much better condition it would have been given a better abandonment
location. If original owners would have been thoughtful enough, this whaler would have been
left on a wind swept much drier spot. There are dozens of such locations at much lower
elevations within a kilometer of this Prince of Wales landing.
Seasonal coincidence equates this picture with the most likely time of abandonment, late
August early September, a time when snow stays until July of the following year. Given its
height a tremendous effort would have been alleviated by the very ice you see, the alleged
survivors needed only to pull by following the frozen creek upwards. A long standing survival
tradition was suggested by Royal Navy personnel, the whaler could have served as a shelter,
once placed upside down, it would have provided solace from harsh weather to many men,
quite similar to what was done during Adolphus W. Greely's expedition. Could it be that
they've stayed in a make shift shelter comprising of a sod house floor with a whaler roof?
This would explain Bowhead whale ribs thrown further down, away from their original
placement within the sod house perimeter.
The above is intelligent speculation, devoid of any authentic real account, that's all one
can do. Many, many amateur explorers fall prey to the lichen fallacy syndrome. Lichens grow
excruciatingly slowly, they do not have a chance to do otherwise, these dominant Arctic plants
attach themselves to artifacts as well. Estimating age of any artifact by lichen colony analysis
gives a good idea of how ,long the object was there. The dry parts of this whaler has very little
growth, suggesting a young age (a couple of hundred years). Summer days last only a few
weeks a year, hence a very restrained growing season. When looking at any Arctic discoveries
anyone can easily estimate the age of raised objects. Inukshuks (cairns) rich with lichen
colonies are testimony to true Inuit heritage, after all they stood up for several thousand years.
By this definition Franklin era cairns look like they were put up yesterday.
easily acquired. One must be versed in at least 3 pertinent cultures, the Canadian Inuit,
Greenlandic Inuit and the Royal Navy of the mid 19th century. Each culture branch out in so
many different ways that it's hard to keep focus with the narrow subject at hand. Finding Inuit
clues are useless unless there is British confirmation. Once in a while there is a break from
hesitation given by the nebulous remains scattered through time and space.
Take the Prince of Wales lifeboat as one example. OK there is this whaler, yes it is
European, no Inuit story can give its origin, European data is scarce, not even McClintock
was certain about the original dimensions of the whalers on Terror and Erebus, this in 1859.
1993 Carbon 14 results were strange, there was no identification on the POW whaler only
its length, width of a mast and depth which favours a match with the longer whaleboats on
Erebus or Terror. At left is a combination between original pictures taken in England and
Prince of Wales Island with photocopy segments of the original plan made in 1839 for the
refit of Erebus and Terror. Computer juxtaposition without modifications allows a neat
comparison, which demonstrates the pictures fitting the plan.
On top left is a picture taken at the Royal Maritime Museum in 1993, it is a prow plucked
by Lieutenant Schwatka during his 1879 expedition on King William Island. Contrary to this
second boat found at the McClintock site, the first one contained two bodies and had same
dimensions as with the Prince of Wales boat. No one doubts that the Royal Maritime
museum has a genuine Franklin artifact. The original plan (the red trace is mine) fits the
prow picture profile nicely. This confirms the high quality of the old plan. The second
sequence (bottom left) is about the prow of the whaler on Prince of Wales Island. It fits
again well with the original 1839 plan. In Voyage of the Fox the PoW prow is identical to
the only prow sketch in that book, except for the lettering, severe weathering left no marks,
the keel of this whaler was found upright, exposed for a long time to natures sand blaster
drifting snow.
whaler. The prows are remarkably similar angle wise, but their designs are different, the
PoW island prow is one unit, the Schwatka prow has three sections, their size is apparently
different, but more precise measurements need to be done.
the 1970's and 80's, a cottage community lived there, at one time people remained on the
island year round. David Oingoot and his family enjoyed the Northern part of this Island
during all 4 seasons. PoW Island is not desolate but full of life living around an endless
ecological clock cycle slowed down by the ever present Arctic cold, a partner of the long
night.
David has a very keen eye for foreign archaeological artifacts, and to his credit, contrary to
the custom of using wood either for fuel or carpentry, he found and kept a mast section from
a river delta, not far away from the whaler, closer to the 5 and 3/4 inch wood beam. This mast
has been torn apart by a great force, most certainly from a ship crushed by ice. The mast
sheared off in several parts lengthwise. Fortunately David found the bottom part, on it one
can see a flattened area, it was fastened to the ship at that location.
Almost exactly 7 feet 6 inches from the bottom of this mast, is the horizontal apex of a
painted isosceles triangle with 6 inch sides. Could it be that this is a ship construction mark
indicating the ceiling height of the deck where this section was? This is a signature piece, it
requires your help. Was the Terror or Erebus decks 7.5 feet high? If you know the answer
please write.
silent but begs to give out information without having it taken apart. A few meters to the
South, there are three tent rings with guy ropes, all in line with the cairn. Russell Island
can be seen straight North, the location of the old whaler is visible some 18 miles away.
Being hollow on top, it is very much like cairns described in Voyage on the Fox. This one
stands nearly six feet high, as with the abandoned whaler a British measurement. Counting
the layers as on this picture gives a result of 48, as in 1848. However counting layers on a
photograph is not as good as breaking the cairn down and counting by hand. But there is
at least 48 layers, making it quite possible that this cairn is a little more complicated than
just a pile of rocks.
1848 makes a great deal of sense considering the last surviving Franklin expedition
written record of that date. 1848 also is plausible considering the King William Island story
of the lone ship returning whence it came, many crew members returned to at least one
ship after abandonment in April of 48. The historical low body count of the expedition is
explained by men quitting the long southwards march for the comfort of their beloved ship.
Finally the Chieftain drawing was done in March of 1849, this favours 1848 as the year of
the sinking of the ship it portrays. Considering yearly climate data, the only period possible
for navigation in Peel Sound is August and September.
such caches at the big cairn site. The one in this picture would most likely cover a crate or a
box 29 inches long 16 inches wide and 12 inches deep, most likely 28 by 16 by 12, presumably
a conventional measurement. Very little lichens within the cache again indicates a recent
construct, younger than 200 years are so. The site of the big cairn has very little garbage, any
artifact of value was retrieved long ago by Inuit hunters who viewed this site with a great deal of
fascination. The garbage at this site is mostly modern, bullet caps and camping gear etc.
A recent Inuit caribou cache was made right by the great cairn (a very useful marker for even
modern Inuit). The difference between the square cache and caribou one is that the caribou
cache had bones, fungus and plant byproducts from decaying venison, the rectangular big cairn
caches are essentially clean. There is no practical reason to bury or cover crates, aside from
hiding them, a clearly European idea indeed.
