The death of Robert Falcon Scott as he returned from the South Pole may partly have been the result of the actions of his own colleagues which were later hushed up, a new book claims.
In it, Chris Turney of the University of New South Wales in Sydney says he has uncovered archive material suggesting that Scott and his men found less food than expected at a key point on their return journey from the South Pole in February 1912.
Turney points the finger at Teddy Evans, Scott鈥檚 second-in-command, who turned back before reaching the pole.
Advertisement
En route to the Pole, Scott鈥檚 party laid down depots of food and fuel to sustain them on the way back. It is well known that Scott鈥檚 team found food and fuel supplies unexpectedly low at some of these depots. Turney now claims to have new evidence of a further food shortage at a critical part of the journey, when the team were on the home stretch and starving.
Scott and three other men died just 18 kilometres from their final food depot. Had they reached it, they probably would have survived.
Diary accounts
The claim is largely based on notes from two meetings in April 1913 between George Curzon, president of the UK鈥檚 Royal Geographical Society, and the widows of Scott and Edward Wilson, who died alongside the British leader.
In the first meeting, Kathleen Scott pointed out entries in her husband鈥檚 diary complaining about food shortages and the 鈥渓ack of thoughtfulness鈥� of other members of the expedition.
In a separate meeting, Oriana Wilson told Curzon that her husband鈥檚 diary contained a passage complaining of an 鈥渋nexplicable鈥� shortage of food on the return journey. Curzon also notes that she was determined to keep it a secret.
Turney says the other food shortfall that we previously knew about was at depots Scott鈥檚 party reached after Wilson gave up writing his diary.
He believes Wilson was referring to a depot that Scott and the surviving men reached on 24 February 1912. In Wilson鈥檚 published diary, the entry for that date makes no mention of any shortage, but Turney says the pencilled text of the original has numerous random gaps amid dense text, suggesting that somebody 鈥� probably Oriana 鈥� rubbed out part of that entry, Turney says.
Likely culprit
The most likely culprit for the shortage is Teddy Evans, Scott鈥檚 second-in-command, who travelled south with Scott but was omitted from the final push to the pole with about 200 kilometres to go. He and two other men reluctantly turned back at that point.
Evans went down with scurvy on the return journey and had to be pulled on a sledge by his two companions, perhaps accounting for them taking more than their fair share of food.
It also appears that Curzon decided to hush up the controversy. 鈥淐urzon could not risk the story getting out,鈥� Turney says. 鈥淪cott and his companions had been declared heroes. To suggest that one of the returning teams had helped themselves to more than their fair share of food, contributing to the men鈥檚 deaths, would have changed everything.鈥�
Curiously, Scott鈥檚 own diary entry for 24 February does not mention a food shortage: 鈥淔ound store in order except shortage oil,鈥� it reads.
But Turney claims that Scott was distracted by the severe and totally unexpected shortage of fuel at the depot 鈥� the cans had not been sealed properly and the paraffin had evaporated 鈥� and the recent death of another of his party, Edgar Evans. He corrected his omission three days later with an entry saying that they had less food than originally thought.
Turney makes the claims in his book , published this week.
Roland Huntford, author of a dual biography of Scott and his Norwegian rival Roald Amundsen, says that the story is consistent with the shambolic nature of the expedition, but does not think Evans can be blamed. The food depots were badly organised and it would have been all but impossible for Evans and his men to know how much food was rightfully theirs. 鈥淚t was entirely Scott鈥檚 fault because of poor organisation,鈥� he says.
