432 • REVIEWS
Humphreys, nominally the expedition’s leader. While noting that the party’s plan to send a large party to northern Ellesmere Island was impractical and had to be modified by splitting the party into three separate excursions, the author did not have the benefit of recent revelations that explain why...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.669.3974 http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/viewFile/463/495/ |
| Summary: | Humphreys, nominally the expedition’s leader. While noting that the party’s plan to send a large party to northern Ellesmere Island was impractical and had to be modified by splitting the party into three separate excursions, the author did not have the benefit of recent revelations that explain why the shake-up occurred. In 1986, the late Lord Shackleton revealed to Jean Malaurie (2003) the real reason—an incipient mutiny by their Inughuit guides, who concluded that Humphreys ’ authoritarian actions would imperil the group. Faced with aborting the entire expedi-tion, Humphreys ’ British colleagues prevailed on him to withdraw from its effective leadership. Here, Stallworthy may also have played a role. Sent largely to chaperone the inexperienced British explorers, Stallworthy had prior relationships with the Inughuit that may have helped per- |
|---|