Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:33:20.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An examination of Edward Inglefield's 1852 voyage into Jones Sound

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2011

Brian Graville*
Affiliation:
10994 Eighth Line RR2, Georgetown, Ontario, L7G 4S5Canada (briangraville@sympatico.ca)

Abstract

Edward Augustus Inglefield is usually credited with penetrating Jones Sound to 84°W longitude during his Franklin search voyage of 1852. His chart of the region including Coburg Island replaced Horatio Austin's chart made in 1851 and became the accepted standard until the 20th century. By analysing Inglefield's map of Coburg Island it is shown that he made several errors in navigation and surveying which resulted in him believing he was further west than he really was and overestimating his speed. The results suggest he mistook Stewart Islands for Cone and Smith Islands and that his Sir Robert Inglis Peak reportedly seen near 84°W was actually Cone Island. Thus his penetration of Jones Sound was no further than Austin's the year before and the ready acceptance of his charts set back the mapping of that region of the Arctic for three quarters of a century.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Bowditch, N., 1837. The new American practical navigator. New York: E. & G.W. Blunt.Google Scholar
Great Britain. 1850. Arctic expedition. Return to an order of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 5 February 1850. London: Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be printed, 5 March 1850. (Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Sessional papers, Accounts and papers, 1850, 34, No. 107: 69–70). (Arctic Bibliography 45223, Taylor 1850a)Google Scholar
Great Britain. 1852A. Arctic expeditions. Report of the Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inquire into and report on the recent Arctic expeditions in search of Sir John Franklin. London: (Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Sessional papers, Accounts and papers, 1852, 50, No. 1435: 204). (Arctic Bibliography 45227, Taylor 1852a)Google Scholar
Great Britain. 1852B. Arctic expeditions. Return to an address of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 19 November 1852. London: Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be printed, 20 December 1852. (Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Sessional papers, Accounts and papers, 1852–53, Vol. 60, No. 82: 40c). (Arctic Bibliography 45238, Taylor 1852m)Google Scholar
Hayes, D., 2003 Historical atlas of the Arctic. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.Google Scholar
Hydrographic Office. 1852. Track of the Isabel, 10 December 1852. Taunton: United Kingdom Hydrographic Office L8935Google Scholar
Hydrographic Office. 1853. Track chart of the voyage of the Isabel, 12 May 1853. Taunton: United Kingdom L9100Google Scholar
Inglefield, E.N., 1853. A summer search for Sir John Franklin (with a peep into the polar basin). London: Thomas Harrison.Google Scholar
Lambert, A., 2009 Franklin, tragic hero of polar navigation, London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Mills, W.J., 2003 Exploring polar frontiers. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIOGoogle Scholar
Osborn, S. 1854 Polar regions. New York: A.S. Barnes & Co.Google Scholar
Ross, W.G. 2003. False leads in the Franklin search. Polar Record 39 (2): 131160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, I.R. 1987. Edward Augustus Inglefield (1820–1894). Arctic 40: 8081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sverdrup, O. 1904. New land, four years in the Arctic regions Vol. 1. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
U.S. Navy 2011. U.S. Naval Observatory on-line calculator. URL: http://aa.usnoGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, R., 2007 The Arctic, a history. Stroud: Sutton PublishingGoogle Scholar
Wright, J., 1940. South-east Ellesmere Island. The Geographical Journal (95) 4: 278291CrossRefGoogle Scholar