Franklin's Last Voyage Analysis

657 Words3 Pages
In 1845, Britain sent a seasoned artic explorer, Sir John Franklin, with two ships, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, on an explorative mission to find a northwest passage connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. In 1847, Franklin died, leaving Francis Crozier and James Fitzjames in mutual command of the surviving crew. But they, along with the rest of the crew, went missing, and presumed dead, in 1848. The primary factor in there death is undoubtedly the cold and harsh climate of the Arctic, with lead poisoning and cannibalism as comparable causes of death. When investigating history, physical evidence, such as scientific studies and witness testimonies are more compelling and are the best way to analyze history. Upon reviewing the interpretations page of “The Mysteries of Franklin’s Last Voyage” a general concuss was formed, by the experts, that the weather and geography caused the demise of Franklin and his men. However lead poisoning and cannibalism also caused the death of Franklin’s crew. When Franklin’s crew, who departed the ships alive, were found dead, scientist Owen Beattie conducted a tissue analyses and found that there was a high level of lead in the tissue;…show more content…
During this cross-referencing, the historian must first discern if the information given is similar throughout the sources, and that there are no discrepancies. If the source is a primary source, and is a witness testimony, rate it against other witness testimonies to amalgamate an idea of what happened. If the primary source is scientific evidence, it should be considered as a strong source. If the source is secondary, it should be compared to secondary sources taking an opposite stance on the subject of the initial secondary source, that way an opinion which should contain the best information of the two sources, can be

    More about Franklin's Last Voyage Analysis

      Open Document