Bryce offers precious little critical analysis of Peary’s claim in this massive tome -- 5 pages or so, by my count. Essentially, Bryce tells us that Peary's claim has been discredited, and that is that. He has not produced, and no prior critic has discovered, a single piece of evidence showing that Peary faked his claim. Bryce and other critics merely find Peary's own narrative unbelievable, and deplore the lack of "proof."

It is a bit odd that Bryce is so concerned about lack of positive proof (if there could be such a thing) to support Peary's claim, but so willing to give Cook the benefit of every doubt.

A comparison of Peary's North Pole claim to Cook's will serve to illustrate the discrepancy. Cook reported the existence of two landmasses and a "sunken glacial island" along his route to the pole. They do not exist. By contrast, everything that Peary reported about his trip (lack of land, depth soundings) is true. Peary is criticized for taking only a Black man and Eskimos to the pole. But these witnesses consistently and repeatedly over many years confirmed the essential facts of the trip. On the other hand, Cook's only witnesses directly contradicted his account of his trip, first in 1909 when questioned by members of Peary's expedition and on numerous occasions thereafter. In these circumstances it is odd that Bryce devotes hundreds of pages to Cook’s bogus claim, but dismisses Peary’s out of hand.

The author claims to find direct evidence against Peary such as a photo in which the sun is at exactly the proper altitude to place Peary at the Pole. Bryce's conclusion: this is proof of fraud. Peary, he claims, set up this shot as phony supporting evidence, but never published it, since it would not constitute absolute proof. By this dubious rationalization, Bryce attempts to transform evidence that supports Peary into evidence against him.

Bryce also claims that a certain photo Peary published has been tampered with, and would convict Peary. This is outrageously sloppy scholarship. The document Bryce refers to states that the negative of the photo in question is at the National Geographic Society, and that an un-retouched print of the photo appears in the U.K. edition of Peary's book. The negative and print utterly demolish Bryce's claim that the sun had been cropped out of the photo. It is inexcusable that Bryce did not check out these sources.

Bryce also exhumes the argument that Peary's diary is a fake because it is too clean. The Congressional subcommittee examining Peary's evidence in 1910 commented on the cleanliness of the diary. Peary explained the care with which he protected the diary from the elements and satisfied the questioners. It is worth noting that Captain Scott's final diary, recovered in Antarctica where he died of starvation is similarly a very clean book. In fact, Peary critic Dennis Rawlins himself has described it as immaculate. The filthy condition of some polar diaries reflects the use of blubber for fuel and food. Peary used alcohol and pemmican. Bryce does not mention any of this.

Ultimately, the "evidence" against Peary comes down to questions of speed and navigation. At least a dozen experienced arctic dogsledders, ranging from contemporaries of Peary to the present, have published their views of Peary's claimed distances. The vast majority, excluding Wally Herbert, who himself claims Polar priority among dogsledders based on his 1968 trip, have stated that Peary's speeds were credible. Responding to one of the early critical works by British cleric Gordon Hayes, Peter Freuchen, an experienced Arctic dogsledder who maintained a trading post in Greenland for many years, said he found it funny that anyone cared what Hayes thought about Peary's dog sledding distances. I suspect he would find it funny that anyone would care what Bryce thinks about this subject.

The other major argument against Peary (a trained surveyor) is that his method of navigation was inadequate. Surveyors at the Coast and Geodetic Survey discussed Peary's navigation with him, and concluded his methods were adequate. At least two modern authors have come to the same conclusion. Bryce makes no attempt to address these views, other than to fall back on Cook's old stratagem: everyone who disagrees with him is biased and/or on the payroll of the "Peary Arctic Trust."

Whatever the merits of the arguments regarding distances and navigation, Bryce should have given his readers the benefit of these competing views before presenting his own conclusion. Cook & Peary is a job half done.

Douglas R. Davies
February, 2002