Slashdot Mirror


Northwest Passage Exploration Ship Found

Kittenman writes: The BBC (and several other sources) are carrying the news that the Canadian government has found the sunken remains of one of Sir John Franklin's ships (either the Erebus, or the Terror), that went missing in the 1840s, causing sensation in Victorian London. Sir John and his entire crew were never seen alive again. The search for traces of the expedition went for over ten years in the 19th century, partly led by Sir John's widow. The discovery has been called the biggest archaeological event since the discovery of Tutankhamen's tomb.

80 comments

  1. History rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ship from doomed 1845 Franklin Expedition found

    September 9th, 2014

    One of two ships from British explorer Sir John Franklin’s ill-fated 1845 expedition to find the fabled Northwest Passage has been discovered off King William Island in northern Canada. The ship appears to be in excellent condition. It’s standing straight up, with the bow five meters (16’4) off the sea and the stern four meters (13’1). The sonar image indicates that the deck is largely intact. Even some of its structures are visible, including the stumps of the masts that were sliced off by ice when the ship went down. With the deck still in place in the frigid Arctic waters, archaeologists are optimistic that there will be well-preserved artifacts still inside the ship.

    It’s the sixth time since 2008 that Parks Canada has led a search of the Arctic seabed for the Franklin ships. This year the search area was the Victoria Strait, between Victoria Island and King William Island in the Nunavut territory. It was the largest search yet, a partnership between private and public organizations including Parks Canada, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, the Arctic Research Foundation, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Navy and the government of Nunavut. They also had new technology on their side. Parks Canada recently acquired a remotely operated underwater vehicle which played a key role in identifying and documenting the wreck.

    A team of Government of Nunavut archaeologists surveying a small island southwest of King William as part of the expedition has also made significant discoveries: an iron davit (part of the boat-launching mechanism) from a Royal Navy ship and a wooden object that archaeologists believe could be a plug for a deck hawse (the pipe through which the chain cable was threaded). The davit bears the telltale “broad arrow” marks of the Royal Navy and the number 12. These artifacts were found on September 1st, six days before the sonar encountered the ship. The discovery reinforced that the marine search was in the right area.

    It’s not clear at this point which of Franklin’s ships it is. Sir John and 128 crewmen set out on his fourth Arctic expedition with two ships, the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror. He was 59 years old and it had been 20 years since his last trip to the Arctic. The ships were provisioned with enough tinned foods to last three years (unfortunately the cans were poorly soldered and lead leached into the food) and outfitted with steam engines and iron cladding to help the ships break through the year-round ice.

    European witnesses — crew from the whaler Prince of Wales — last spotted the ships moored to an iceberg off Baffin Island on July 26th, 1845. Historians believe Franklin wintered on Beechey Island only to become trapped by the ice off King William Island in September of 1846. The crew left the icebound ships and tried to make their way south on foot, but disease, starvation and lead poisoning ultimately claimed all of their lives.

    Finding out what happened to Franklin and his crew became a cause célèbre. Thirty-nine expeditions were launched over the next 50 years to find some trace of Franklin’s expedition. The first clues were found in 1850 on Beechey Island, including the graves of three crewmen. A later expedition found a letter on King William Island noting that Franklin had died there on June 11th, 1847. In 1854, Inuit hunters told Scottish explorer Dr. John Rae that they had witnessed Franklin crewmen dying while walking on the ice and that the few survivors had resorted to cannibalism. Osteological analysis of remains found on King William Island in 1997 confirmed that they had indeed been cannibalized. Franklin’s body was never found.

    The search for the ships has taken on new urgency in the past few years as melting ice has increasingly opened the Northwest Passage to shipping. The statement on the find from Prime Minister Stephen Harper emphasizes the significance of the find as the historical foundation of “Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.”

    1. Re:History rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Above copy/pasted from The History Blog, a fine website, where there are also some neat pics...

      http://www.thehistoryblog.com/

    2. Re:History rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >ships were provisioned with enough tinned foods to last three years (unfortunately the cans were poorly soldered and lead leached into the food)

      The tins were soldered using a high speed method that was relatively new and more than lead, the food inside spoiled in the majority of the tins due to poor seals and cooking. They had to discard a great number of the tins and rely on the grains they had for biscuits with each meal.

  2. When Steve Martin Does It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THEN it is as big as King Tut.

  3. Who names those ships? by mirix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Names like HMS Erebus and HMS Terror are kind of asking to sink with all hands on deck, aren't they?

    Must be British humour or something...

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
    1. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Victorian humour would be more apt, it was a time when there was still an "empire"

    2. Re:Who names those ships? by CeasedCaring · · Score: 5, Informative

      Erebus == Greek god of Darkness

    3. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and as for Erebus, well nobody had even heard of that Antarctic volcano until flight 901 hit it in 1979

      If I were about to post that I'd first take a moment to google Erebus on the off chance it already had some applicable meaning. Just sayin'.

    4. Re:Who names those ships? by ledow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but HMS Please Don't Hurt Me doesn't have the same kind of ring to it.

    5. Re:Who names those ships? by disposable60 · · Score: 2

      Not compared with the Daring, the Audacity and the Suicidal Insanity.

      / please correct these?

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    6. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the Thresher and the Scorpion sound pretty badass too.

    7. Re:Who names those ships? by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They were on an exploration mission with a pair of ships named Darkness and Terror.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offensive Unit All Through With This Niceness And Negotiation Stuff is just a friendly neighborhood warship.

    9. Re:Who names those ships? by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Google wasn't around in 1979

    10. Re:Who names those ships? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The HMS Terror was also involved in the War of 1812 under the command of John Sheridan it lay siege on Balitmore, which led to a poem by Francis Scott Key and then inspired "The Star Spangled Banner".

      These ships are as much a part of US history as they are of Canadian.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    11. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot be THAT fucking stupid.

    12. Re:Who names those ships? by phorm · · Score: 1

      I think the names were to make the ships scary to other people, not the crew.

    13. Re:Who names those ships? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Who cares about the ring, when the HMS She's One Of Ours, Sir! can easily get a round or two off before the confusion is sorted out on the opponent's deck?

    14. Re:Who names those ships? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Karma's a bitch.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Who names those ships? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Their partner ship, the Event Horizon, came back. Changed.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:Who names those ships? by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Offensive Unit All Through With This Niceness And Negotiation Stuff is just a friendly neighborhood warship.

      I've seen half-serious suggestions that, should Scotland gain independence and create its own navy, all its ships should be named after Culture spacecraft...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    17. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HMS Terror also stood off Stonington, CT and lobbed mortars into the town as part of a small invasion squadron which also include HMS Pactolus, HMS Ramilles, and HMS Dispatch. The Stoningtonians fought the British off with a couple of 12-lb. cannons that are still in the town square to this day. Terror was a "bomb" ship, built to withstand the wracking that firing large mortars entailed. This sturdy construction is why it was re-purposed for use in Arctic exploration; it was a halfway-decent icebreaker for its day.

    18. Re:Who names those ships? by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      I like this! :D

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    19. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karma - what?!
      I could making get a "Karma" comment/claim, if say the ship was involved with something later against her own country, but in your world does Karma only affect those who've acted against the US?
      [ Disclosure - I live in the Great White North. It's very interesting to see how the war of 1812, US war of aggression against her neighbor, arguably the only big war the US lost, is viewed differently up here. ]

    20. Re:Who names those ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were originally built as bomb ketches, giving them thicker hulls more appropriate for navigation in ice. The names were intended to convey the enemy's supposed reaction in wartime.

    21. Re:Who names those ships? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Not compared with the Daring, the Audacity and the Suicidal Insanity.

      / please correct these?

      No worse than the HMS Terrible.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Biggest archaeological event? by grouchomarxist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm no archaeologist, but I doubt most archaeologists would claim this discovery ranks that highly. The person making the claim is an expert on the Franklin expedition, so he's bound to be a bit biased. It certainly sounds interesting, but we know a lot about Britain in the 1840s. I think the bigger archaeological discoveries involve civilizations we don't know much about.

    1. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as big as tutankamon, but the biggest since the discovery of tutankamon!

    2. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Seriously. How can a 19th century ship be compared in importance to, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls?

    3. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no archaeologist, but I doubt most archaeologists would claim this discovery ranks that highly. The person making the claim is an expert on the Franklin expedition, so he's bound to be a bit biased. It certainly sounds interesting, but we know a lot about Britain in the 1840s. I think the bigger archaeological discoveries involve civilizations we don't know much about.

      What's 3 millenia between friends? Claiming that a 200 year old discovery compares with a 3200 year old one that involved a powerful king and emperor is a little on the absurd side.

    4. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is a big deal with respect to the history of Canada. The hopes for a Northwest Passage is one of the reasons the British were so keen on keeping Canada. Having said that, no matter how hard PM Stephen Harper wants us to believe this, it was not the government of Canada that found this wreck. It was the people who he is trying very hard to muzzle who found the boat.

    5. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm no archaeologist, but I doubt most archaeologists would claim this discovery ranks that highly. The person making the claim is an expert on the Franklin expedition, so he's bound to be a bit biased. It certainly sounds interesting, but we know a lot about Britain in the 1840s. I think the bigger archaeological discoveries involve civilizations we don't know much about.

      True, I'd rate this wreck much higher. It told us a wealth of things about ancient trade routes, the nature of cargo, how it was stowed, ship design in 3400BP, ... the list goes on, and they were all things that were mostly just make educated guesses at before. Then there is this a 1500 year old Roman transport just sitting there perfectly in tact. It makes you wonder what else is sitting there on the bottom of the Black Sea perfectly in tact: A Greek or Roman trireme, still sitting there with the oars in place and two Ballistas still standing on the deck? A Phoenician transport with it's cargo of perishables still in tact? A bronze, copper or even neolithic period merchant vessel? Something much, much older?

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    6. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uh, what about:

      1) the finding of the undisturbed royal tombs of the 21th and 22nd dynasties in Tanis in 1940?

      2) the finding of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945?

      3) the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran around ~1950?

      4) the finding of an extremely well preserved chalcolithic European in 1991?

      5) the finding of Qin Shi Huang's Teracotta Army in 1973? (Which is probably nothing compared to what we'll find in the undisturbed tomb one day.)

      Perhaps also, sort of: 6) the discovery in 1973 that the corroded lump of rock found in ~1900 and lying in a Greek museum for decades is actually an Ancient Greek mechanical astronomical computer.

      And besides these "grade A+ finds", could also point to "regular" "grade A finds" like Gobekli Tepe, the Staffordshire hoard, the aspherical Viking lenses found at Visby, etc. etc.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It certainly sounds interesting, but we know a lot about Britain in the 1840s.

      Surprisingly, there's a lot of stuff we don't even know about World War II. As to the 19th century Britain, I remember that our notion of certain first major steam-powered factories had to be re-evaluated once it was found during archaeological expectations that they don't match the physical evidence.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by rHBa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not even the biggest naval archaeological event since the discovery of Tutankhamen's tomb, how about the discovery of the Mary Rose, discovered in 1971.

    9. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by higuita · · Score: 2

      or titanic!!

      --
      Higuita
    10. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by Storebj0rn · · Score: 1

      Or the Monitor .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor#Rediscovery Or the Titanic for that matter.

      --
      "Windows are for cheaters" - Bruce Springsteen
    11. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by rHBa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not saying finding the Titanic wasn't important but archaeologically speaking it is far less important than the Mary Rose.

      On the one hand we have the Titanic which sunk in 1912, we know virtually everything about, it's design, it's passenger list etc. Heck we even have film footage of it.

      On the other hand we have the Marry Rose which sank in 1545 and (according to Wikipedia) "The surviving section of the ship and thousands of recovered artefacts are of immeasurable value as a Tudor-era time capsule. [...] The finds include weapons, sailing equipment, naval supplies and a wide array of objects used by the crew. Many of the artefacts are unique to the Mary Rose and have provided insights into topics ranging from naval warfare to the history of musical instruments.".

    12. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Possibly because the disappearance of the Franklin expedition lead to one of the largest maritime searches in history.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by Piata · · Score: 2

      Really? The Monitor? Did you just suggest an Arctic expedition that vanished ~170 years ago and claimed 128 lives is of less archaeological importance than a ship that capsized in a storm while under tow?

    14. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, Grace Dieu didn't end up much better, and people still think it is historically important. But admittedly, in many aspects (outside the technological one), this expedition is certainly more interesting.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by Storebj0rn · · Score: 1

      Yes, I kinda did.
      To my understanding, archaeological importance is about what we can learn from the discovery. So first a disclaimer; I do not know how much man has learned from recovering the Monitor, and nobody knows at of this moment what we will learn from investigating this ship (finding it in itself is not that big a deal).
      The Monitor (and the Virginia (ex Merrimack)) changed the way wars was fought at sea. Thus it is one of the most important historical objects of naval warfare. (although it had severe and crippling limitations)
      And although I recognize Arctic expeditions as much as the next Norwegian (a friend of mine is of Amundsen descent); in those days ships sometimes perished without trace. Amundsen himself perished, and has not been found.
      I'm not saying this discovery is unimportant, but not _that_ important.
      (Anyway I agree with parent, dead sea scrolls beats this discovery hands down (and maybe Tutankhamen's tomb itself)

      --
      "Windows are for cheaters" - Bruce Springsteen
    16. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Possibly because the disappearance of the Franklin expedition lead to one of the largest maritime searches in history.

      Imagine if CNN had existed back then....

    17. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The reason its an archeological marvel is no archeologists have had access to it to rip it apart and muck it up. A hundred years from now archeologists will wish it hadn't been discovered and mucked up because THEY will have non-invasive capabilities we only wish existed today.

      Anything that represents a 'time snapshot' that no other scientists have had access to is valuable to an archeologist. So long as he/she gets to it first.

    18. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The main thing is to find it quickly and get grant funding to root around in it. Move important parts from the site to modern steel and glass buildings, and record everything about it all on paper and (better yet) on hard drives that will be obsolete in a decade.

      Yes, it's essential that we find and explore all historical relics, because history has ended and it's just a matter now of summing everything up.

    19. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by wanax · · Score: 1

      With regard to that, I'd highly recommend Fatal Passage by Ken McGoogan, which is a biography of arctic explorer John Rae, who conducted the search for the Franklin expedition (and probably could have rescued them if things had worked out just a little bit differently) and discovered the final link in the northwest passage that Amundsen used 50 years later.

    20. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Did you just suggest an Arctic expedition that vanished ~170 years ago and claimed 128 lives [...]

      To be fair, the lives lost weren't due to the sinking, but due to the trek they were forced to make over the ice. IIRC, recovered tin cans from the first campsite, and testing tissue from the excavated remains of three buried crew members showed that lead poisoning was likely a huge factor in the decisions that led to most of their deaths.

      Not sure if the ship itself will yield any further clues as to the conditions that lead to the tragedy (aside from knowing precisely where it was stuck in the ice, anyway).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    21. Re:Biggest archaeological event? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      For some reason your comment made me think about Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 and the search for it. Maybe it'll be 100 years before someone finds it and it'll be a new archeological find.

    22. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying finding the Titanic wasn't important but archaeologically speaking it is far less important than the Mary Rose.

      Finding the Titanic was more an engineering feat than an archaeological feat. the Titanic was in 3,800 metres of water (21 KM from it's reported 1912 position) and sonar was pretty useless (Ballard found the Titanic in the same way he found lost nuclear subs for the USN, by looking for debris on the ocean floor).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    23. Re: Biggest archaeological event? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Monitor had a bunch of sister ships.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  5. Ghostbusters by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

    ...kind of reminds me of the scene in Ghostbusters II (1989) where the Titanic just arrived ...

  6. Shipping Claims by Aereus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real thing to take out of this article is the political angle: Canada funded the expedition in the hopes it somehow gives more weight to their claims over the shipping lanes invariably opening up as the arctic ice cap disappears.

    1. Re:Shipping Claims by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

      ... shipping lanes invariably opening up as the arctic ice cap disappears.

      I think you missed the underlying reason. This is just another facet of the elaborate internationally coordinated "global warming" hoax. Once they convince you the ice caps are melting then it is a slippery slope down to allowing Fluoride in our drinking water or believing men landed on the moon or even believing the Earth is round.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    2. Re:Shipping Claims by quantaman · · Score: 0

      The real thing to take out of this article is the political angle: Canada funded the expedition in the hopes it somehow gives more weight to their claims over the shipping lanes invariably opening up as the arctic ice cap disappears.

      A process only aided by the Conservatives extreme reluctance to do anything about global warming. It's actually kinda brilliant.

      Step 1) Deny climate change

      Step 2) Northwest passage opens up

      Step 3) Profit!!!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Shipping Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better call U.S. Republican headquarters. A) there is no melting of the ice cap. B) somebody is claiming sovereignty over our possibly useful shipping lanes.

      Either one will require a war.

  7. King Tut rolling in his grave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real thing to take out of this article is the political angle: Canada funded the expedition in the hopes it somehow gives more weight to their claims over the shipping lanes invariably opening up as the arctic ice cap disappears.

    What about the claim that a ship that's less than 200 years old is as important a discovery as the burial site of a king and emperor that is over 3200 years old?

    1. Re:King Tut rolling in his grave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about the release of the new IPhone? Back in the day, newspapers actually had to choose what to put in their paper. Anyway, this discovery simply pokes another hole in the alien abduction theory. Tip for you android autocomplete users: Intact is one word.

  8. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've just taken a dump that has been called the greatest human achievement since building the pyramids.

    Not by a whole lot of people, mind you. But I am a specialist in that area.

  9. I thought we already knew... by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 1

    ..that they died of a combination of lead poisoning (very early tinned food, forensic examination of the grave found a few years ago), and Imperial stupidity (refused to talk to the Inuit, who knew how to survive in that landscape).

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  10. The HMS Terror bombed Baltimore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The HMS Terror started as a bombard ship in the war of 1812. It was one of the ships that bombed Fort McHenry, the 200th anniversary of that battle was yesterday. And that battle was the impetus for Francis Scott Key to write the "Star Spangled Band". The hull of bombard ships was heavy reinforced to support the big mortars on board. It made them perfect for arctic exploration. Kind of a neat coincidence.

  11. Wrong Passage by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    I think they mean the "Canadian Northwest Passage" as it was renamed by the Parliament/Ottawa in motion M-387 that passed unanimously 2 December 2009.

  12. Pentangle by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of this great Pentangle song. You can hear it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... And since it reminds me of that song. now I have to listen to all of the Pentangle's works again - it'll be a good day.

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    1. Re:Pentangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i love that song though the version I'm familiar with was done by someone else (can't remember who right now).

      Also check out Northwest Passage by Stan Rogers.

  13. Treasure! by dloflin · · Score: 1

    More importantly, there was a clue to a treasure map found on board. Ben Gates is being called in to analyze.

  14. Just Northwest of King William Island by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    maybe I'm the only one who cares most about how far they got ... maps here and here.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  15. This is a metric for Malaysia Air by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Stuff that sinks in the ocean tends to be lost for a long time. Absent a tedious, obsessive magnetometer scan of the Indian and Antarctic Oceans, I would expect the missing airliner to be undiscovered for rather longer than these British ships.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  16. Obligatory Stan Rogers Song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An on-topic, awesome tune:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMtuFHOWQKk

  17. Oh, good... by nazrhyn · · Score: 1

    So, based on that timeline, we'll find the Malaysian flight in 2188?

  18. Volcanoes by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2, Informative

    These two vessles started off their military life as Bomb (Motar) ships which were traditionally named after Volcanoes, in this cases Mounts Terror & Erebus in Antarctica. (Unsurprisingly Wikipedia is wrong to claim Erebus was named directly after the Greek deity)

    The nature of Mortar ships means they were built with disproportionately strong hulls for their (Ketch) size making them particularly suitable as Polar exploration vessels as the age of strife subsided.

    1. Re:Volcanoes by devman · · Score: 3, Informative

      You've got it backwards. The mountain in Antarctica was named after the ship. The ship was named after the god. James Clark Ross discovered the mountains while sailing with the HMS Erebus and Terror.

    2. Re:Volcanoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently there are mods who are as uninformed about history as you are. HMS Erebus and HMS Terror discovered the Erebus and Terror volcanoes in Antarctica. The volcanoes are named after the ships! Informative my ass.

  19. Re:Tis better to have Tit or Tat? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    How about a tat on your tit?

  20. Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HMS Redshirts

  21. So a new series of Due South, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Fraser and Kowalski found it, then.

  22. Shipping Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? "The real thing to take out"?

    This story was a hot topic in Victorian England. Franklin's widow campaigned for years to find out what happened to her husband and his crew. This story has it all, mystery, tragedy, hubris, heroism. The Franklin Expedition itself builds upon the mythos of the Northwest Passage, a navigation route that turns out to exist but not be viable in any realistic way.

    If you ever want to get chills at an artistic performance, check out the song "Northwest Passage" by Stan Rogers.

    The current politics of the Arctic only add to the story, they do not define it.