On October 27, 1915, after being trapped and slowly crushed by relentless pack ice for nine months in Antarctica’s Weddell Sea, Ernest Shackleton and his crew were forced to abandon their ship, the Endurance, and their ambitious expedition across the frozen continent. The doomed vessel then drifted on the ice for another three weeks before finally succumbing to the icy depths.
For more than a century, experts have pointed to an overwhelming ice floe, believed to have damaged the rudder and caused a massive gash, as the reason for the ship’s destruction. However, a recent study published in the journal Polar Record presents a provocative counter-argument: the ship itself, not the ice, was the primary culprit. The study suggests the Endurance was fundamentally unsuitable for its mission, a critical flaw that Shackleton was reportedly aware of long before his departure for Antarctica.
Dr. Jukka Tuhkuri, an accomplished ice researcher and naval architect, and the author of this new study, was part of the Endurance22 team that located the wreck in 2022. During his involvement, he undertook a personal investigation, meticulously examining historical diaries, private letters, and the ship’s wreckage to uncover the true cause of its sinking.
After a year and a half of dedicated research, Dr. Tuhkuri was poring over archival images from the Royal Geological Society in London — images of a ship once lauded as the strongest wooden vessel ever built. It was then that a new hypothesis dawned on him.
“It’s not the ice, it’s the ship,” Dr. Tuhkuri declared.
He observed that the Endurance’s hull notably lacked crucial structural beams that would have provided the necessary strength to withstand the immense pressures of crushing ice. This design oversight ultimately led to the rudder, stern post, and a portion of the keel being torn away, causing the ship to take on water at an alarming rate.
While Shackleton famously attributed the ship’s fate to insurmountable ice floes in his book “South: A Memoir of the Endurance Voyage,” the new study implies that he might have known the truth was far different. In a letter to his wife, Emily Shackleton, he wrote that “this ship is not as strong as the Nimrod constructionally,” referencing the wooden vessel he used for his 1908 Antarctic expedition.
The Endurance, originally designed as a touring ship for hunting polar bears and walruses in the Arctic, was intended to operate “at the edge of the pack ice but not to be frozen in,” according to Walter Ansel, senior shipwright at Mystic Seaport Museum, who was not involved in this study.
Not only was Shackleton aware of the Endurance’s structural deficiencies, but he also possessed the knowledge to rectify them. He had previously assisted German polar explorer Wilhelm Filchner in reinforcing his ship, the Deutschland, with the very same structural beams that the Endurance lacked. Remarkably, in 1912, the Deutschland survived eight months adrift in the ice-packed Antarctic waters, a testament to its robust construction.
The paper notes five ice compression events recorded in the diaries of the crew members, culminating in a catastrophic event on October 17. Reginald James, one crew member, noted, “the pressure was mostly along the region of the engine room where there are no beams of any strength.” Captain Frank Worsley similarly described the engine room as “the weakest part of the ship.” Both entries, made on October 17, paint a picture of a ship being destroyed by ice due to its inherent structural weaknesses.
The American whaling fleet had encountered similar devastating incidents. For instance, in 1876, twelve inadequately reinforced ships were lost to compressive ice near Alaska, as recalled by Mr. Ansel.
Michael Bravo, a professor at the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that many early polar exploration vessels were simply not fit for their demanding voyages. Such specialized ships were rarely available, and “most of them were purchased second hand and adapted as time and money permitted,” Dr. Bravo stated.
This sentiment might well apply to the Endurance, suggests Michael Smith, author of “Shackleton: By Endurance We Conquer,” who also did not contribute to the new study. Shackleton may have understood that the ship was far from ideal for the expedition. However, he was restless at home, burdened by financial difficulties, and facing a troubled marriage.
“The scale of this expedition is truly daunting, but he needed something to get his teeth into and he wanted to get away,” Mr. Smith explained. He added that Shackleton was driven by a competitive spirit, vying with other explorers to conquer the Antarctic.
Despite these revelations, Mr. Smith believes this new information will likely not alter the public’s perception of Shackleton. Historians already recognize him as a man who embraced risks and made monumental decisions under extreme pressure. The inherent dangers of these polar missions were well-known to the explorers themselves.
“To be a polar explorer a century ago was an act of faith in itself,” Mr. Smith concluded.