This paper analyses the pioneering global voyages of HMS
Challenger and SMS Gazelle in the 1870s – a time of rapid scientific advances and
technological innovation. The voyage of Challenger has become well known as marking
the start of the global-scale science of oceanography. The voyage of the
Gazelle is much less well known despite the two voyages ending in the same year,
1876, and having similar geographical and scientific scope.
Rather than focussing on the scientific achievements, the paper concentrates
on how the expeditions were planned and executed, the lives and characters
of the personnel involved, and the underlying motivation behind the voyages.
The paper presents the author's translations of key elements of the
Gazelle reports as a means of introducing the Gazelle expedition to an English-speaking
readership.
Introduction
In spring 1876, two naval vessels anchored in the River Plate in Montevideo,
Uruguay, as they returned towards their home ports at the end of their
multi-year circumnavigations (Fig. 1). The descriptions of their time in
that port recorded in the official narratives differed markedly. The narrative of
SMS
Seiner Majestät Schiff (His Majesty's Ship).
Gazelle (in port,
16–19 February) (Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät, 1889a) comments that they found
HMS
Her Majesty's Ship.
Challenger (in port 15–25 February) there and
reached an agreement that the two vessels would follow different tracks
towards Europe – Gazelle eastwards on 35∘ S and then northwards on
25∘ W and Challenger eastwards on 38∘ S and then northwards on
15∘ W. Surprisingly the official Challenger narrative (Tizard et al., 1885b)
makes no mention of the encounter with Gazelle. It is, however, mentioned in the
personal letters of Assistant Steward Joe Matkin (Rehbock, 1992) and on p. 194/5 of the travelogue of James Wild, the Challenger's official artist (Wild, 1878). The
Challenger narrative does, however, comment on the cost of beef and sheep meat in
Montevideo.
Challenger (red) and Gazelle (yellow) station positions overlaid on the now known
(ETOP05) ocean bathymetry.
This suggests that the two expeditions took rather different approaches to
reporting. What were the other differences and the similarities, and how did
the two expeditions relate to one another?
The historical, scientific, and technological context
The 1860s and 1870s were decades of invention, expansion, and change. At sea,
steam and sail co-existed, (Harley, 2010), with many ships now powered with
both sails and steam-driven screw propulsion using coal-fired boilers. Sails
freed them on long voyages from total dependence on widely spaced coaling
stations, while steam gave them greater manoeuvrability in light winds and
in confined waters.
Politically, in Europe the decade started with the Franco-Prussian war,
declared in July 1870. Prussian forces besieged Paris, and the navy of the
North German States was blockaded in its home ports by the French fleet.
Those navies were in the midst of the transition from sail to steam. In
part, the blockade failed because of a shortage of coal supplies for the
French. By February 1871, victory was declared by the newly founded Federal
German state.
In Britain, 1870 saw the 50-year-old Queen Victoria start the 33rd year
of her reign over Great Britain and Ireland and over an empire, with a
population approaching 300 million spanning the globe. Communication across
that empire was still largely by sea using fast mail ships. The building of
the Suez Canal, a project led by the French but largely ignored by Britain,
shortened passage times between Britain and India (Bell, 1965; see also https://wavellroom.com/2021/07/16/britain-suez-canal-strategy-1854-1882/,
last access: 12 April 2022). Its opening in 1865 was a major event and
presented an opportunity for a meeting of the world's maritime powers.
In June 1870, a new era dawned as the final connection was made in a
telegraph cable linking Britain to India (By the mid-1860s, transatlantic
telegraph messages could be transmitted at eight words per minute.) Laying and
maintaining submarine cables brought about a growth in what we now call
marine technology. Brunel's ship, the Great Eastern, had had an uneconomical life as a
transatlantic passenger ship from 1859 to 1863 but in 1865 was converted for
cable laying, a task she continued to carry out until she was laid up in
1874. Ships with suitable steam powered winches were needed to deploy the
submarine cables and to recover them if they failed. Critically, knowledge
was needed of ocean depths, not just close to land but along the entire
cable routes, and of the nature of the seabed.
Many years of seafaring had resulted in the accumulation of a great deal of
knowledge about the oceans' waves and currents. These were systematically
analysed and summarized in Maury's Physical Geography of the Sea (Maury,
1855), an initiative perhaps in part stimulated by Benjamin Franklin's study
of the Gulf Stream and Timothy Folger's map (Richardson, 1980) published in
1778 and by James Rennell's posthumously published study of
ocean currents (Rennell, 1832).
Safe access to ports depended on knowledge of the state of the tides, and
during the 19th century the number of places with systematic tidal
observations, mostly in Europe and North America, grew. The understanding of
tidal theory increased to the point where a tidal prediction machine could
be built by Sir William Thomson in 1872 (Cartwright, 1999).
However, below the surface, the oceans remained unexplored and unknown save
for the discoveries made on a small number of pioneering voyages, notably
the research of Carpenter, Jeffreys, and Wyville Thomson on HMS Lightning and HMS Porcupine in
1869 and summarized by Wyville Thomson (1873).
The large-scale understanding of terrestrial geological features was at that
time encapsulated in the various works of Charles Lyell between 1830 and
1868, notably his Principles of Geology (Lyell, 1830–1868). The
development of the understanding of the terrestrial and coastal flora and
fauna had been published in Darwin's Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859).
Photography was also becoming commonplace, and though, in the context of
science, it allowed for the accurate recording of places and objects, it
required cumbersome plate cameras and long exposure times and was not well
suited to record activities.
This then sets the scene for two round-the-world voyages of ocean
exploration conducted in the 1870s. One, that of HMS Challenger, is well known and
resulted in an enormous volume of reports and publications, together with
biological and seabed samples that continue to be analysed. The other, by
the German naval vessel SMS Gazelle, is much less known.
Preparations and rationale for the voyages
Present-day expeditions with global scope require detailed and extensive
planning and the commitment of substantial resources. The same was true in
the 1870s. Both of these voyages were carried out using naval vessels,
indicating national levels of commitment.
The naval and organizational context
Before the 1870s, there had been very few global-scale expeditions, and
certainly a very small number had a significant scientific component. Most
had been aboard British vessels – James Cook, HMS Endeavour, 1776–1781; George Vancouver, HMS Discovery and HMS Chatham 1792–1795; Matthew Flinders, HMS Investigator 1801–1803; and Robert Fitzroy, HMS Beagle, 1831–1836. Some carried civilian scientists, notably Joseph Banks with
Cook and Charles Darwin with Fitzroy.
Less well known are the two voyages led by Jules Dumont-d'Urville aboard the
French ship l'Astrolabe (1826–1829 and 1837–1840). Both had a Pacific and Australasian focus,
but the second sought to reach the south magnetic pole (Dumont-d'Urville,
1842–1846). The 1857–1859 circumnavigation by SMS Novara (Scherzer, 1864) on behalf of
the Austro-Hungarian Navy is also little known, but it carried seven scientists, and
its investigations were guided by Alexander von Humboldt, who exhorted them
inter alia to measure sea temperatures and ocean currents, using drift bottles, and to
create benchmarks against which sea level change could be measured.
The Challenger and Gazelle belonged to very different navies. The Royal Navy was
long-established and in the 1870s was arguably the sole global sea power, a
position encapsulated in the phrase “Britannia Rules the Waves”
originating in the 1760s
Now best known for its use in Sir Henry Wood's musical composition, Fantasia on British Sea Songs.
. The Royal Navy
also had a long history of its ships carrying out global-scale voyages of
exploration. So, the Navy's role in, and support for, the Challenger voyage is
unsurprising.
The rationale behind the Challenger expedition is summarized in the introduction to
Wyville Thomson's 1878 report on The Atlantic (Wyville Thomson, 1878),
largely written while Challenger was still at sea. The report is dedicated to the
Right Honourable G. J. Goschen, M.P., “the First Lord of the Admiralty under whose administration the Challenger expedition was organised”, a clear recognition of the scientists' indebtedness to the Admiralty.
After describing many of the factors already touched on in Sect. 2 of this
paper, Wyville Thomson states the following:
and finally Dr. Carpenter addressed a letter to the First
Lord of the Admiralty, urging the dispatch of a circumnavigating expedition
thoroughly equipped, and with a competent scientific staff, to traverse the
great ocean basins and prepare sections showing their physical and
biological conditions, along certain lines. Dr Carpenter's letter was
referred in due course to the Hydrographer to the Navy, who at once threw
himself cordially into the project and prepared a report, which resulted in
the Lords of the Admiralty agreeing to the dispatch of such an expedition if
the Royal Society recommended it, and provided them with a feasible scheme.
A committee was appointed by the Royal Society, and the comprehensive scheme
was set up.
This was to be an unusual arrangement with a fully equipped naval survey
vessel carrying out her normal duties as detailed in the sailing
instructions issued to her commanding officer and yet carrying a team of
distinguished, civilian scientists each with their own interests and more
loosely defined objectives and with a recognized scientific leader. These
potential tensions are alluded to by Wyville Thomson in the preface (p. xii)
to Wyville Thomson (1878), but, clearly, they did not pose a problem.
The somewhat critical experiment of associating a party of civilians,
holding to a certain extent an independent position, with the naval staff of
a man-of-war, has for once been successful. Captain Nares and Captain
Thomson both fully recognized that the expedition was intended for
scientific purposes, and I do not think that in one single case the
operations of the combined scientific staff were hampered in the least by
avoidable service routine. All the naval officers, without exception,
assisted the civilian staff in every way in their power, and in the most
friendly spirit. If I wished anything done I had only to consider who was
the man, naval or civilian, who was likely to do it best; and the
consequence has been that, with the entire sanction of Captain Nares and
Captain Thomson, the parties sent to camp out or detailed for any special
service have always been mixed, to the great advantage, I believe, of all
concerned.
The Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine), by contrast, had only come
into existence after the foundation of the German Reich in 1871. It grew out of
the Prussian Navy and was headed by General Albrecht von Stosch (1818–1896)
(Hollyday, 2017) (von Stosch did not became an admiral until 1875!).
The personal memoirs of Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz (von Tirpitz, 1919)
provide some context in terms of von Stosch's leadership, of the new navy's
primary objectives, and of the wider political climate.
Stosch (sic) started from the idea of developing Germany's maritime
interests, of strengthening and protecting “Germandom” and German labour
in the world.
Stosch's increasing endeavour to further Germany's maritime interests in
all directions was pursued under great difficulties from the beginning of
his period of office. Foreign service at this time almost overstrained the
resources of the navy. Every commander, however, could reckon upon Stosch's
consistent support in his activities abroad, even in the often independent
and difficult decisions which foreign service required as a result of the
scarcity of cable connections. But this was not done without some friction
with the Imperial Chancellor.
Von Tirpitz remarks that the continuing Prussian influences in Germany's
government favoured the army over the new navy, which was seen as being
tainted with links to commerce and trade.
As far back as the seventies Stosch was convinced that we must acquire
colonies and that we could not continue in existence without some means of
expansion. He considered that the prosperity of the young empire would only
be ephemeral if we did not counterbalance the decided disadvantage of our
position and history overseas before it was too late.
He attached great value to the posting of cruisers to foreign stations,
and rightly too in his time.
There is however a clear hint that von Stosch supported the new navy being
technologically and scientifically advanced.
In the naval academy which Stosch founded at Kiel he inspired the right
idea of teaching fewer special subjects and promoting general education and
independent study. A great deal of mathematics was taught, besides
philosophy, natural and nautical science (regarding which we sent many
observations to the museums during our voyages), and astronomy, which in any
case can be reckoned among the special sciences.
Von Tirpitz also remarks on the high esteem in which the British (English)
Royal Navy was held, both in terms of military experience and technical
prowess, as the following quotation makes clear.
We grew up on the British Navy like a creeping plant. We preferred to get
our supplies from England. If an engine ran smoothly and without a hitch, if
a rope or a chain did not break, then it was certain not to be a homemade
article but a product of English workshops – a rope with the famous red
strand of the British Navy. In those ships which we had built ourselves
things broke with uncomfortable readiness.
Remarkably there is a reference to Gazelle in the von Tirpitz memoirs, but it does
not relate to her round-the-world voyage.
It was seldom that the paths of the Prussian Navy crossed those of
Prussian politics. When it did happen, it was generally in the way related
to us by those who took part in the voyage of the Gazelle to Japan in 1864. A
German ship had gone ashore in the neighbourhood of Yokohama and had been
looted. The commander of the Gazelle, Captain von Bothmer, went thither with a
landing party to protect it.
Scientific guidance and operational orders
The Challenger voyage came about as a continuation and expansion of the pioneering
work aboard HMS Lightning and HMS Porcupine and was planned within the technological and political
context of the 1870s. It was given strong scientific guidance delivered
primarily through the Royal Society and to a lesser extent by deliberations
within the British Association for the Advancement of Science. These
coalesced into a report by the Royal Society's Circumnavigation Committee.
The Committee was made up of officers and council members of the Royal
Society and included Carpenter, Wyville Thomson, Gwyn Jeffreys (an expert on
molluscs who had collected samples on HMS Porcupine), Capt. Richards (the Admiralty's
Hydrographer), the biologist Thomas Huxley (who came to be known as Darwin's
bulldog for his advocacy of the theory of evolution), Sir William Thomson
(renowned for his work on tides and his innovative work on submarine
telegraphy and who had been involved in discussions within the British
Association), and the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker.
The Committee's report, finalized in August 1872, recommended where
Challenger should go and provided details of the observations that should be made and
the manner in which they should be carried out. Interestingly, the report
was published by the US Navy (Navy Department, 1872) and so became widely
available. The report was also published in Nature in the following January
(Anonymous, 1873).
Here it is perhaps appropriate to mention just a few striking features of
the guidance – first, balance; a single page is devoted to defining the route
to be taken and four pages to physical observations under the headings of
“Temperature (subsurface and surface)”, “Movements of the ocean”,
“Tidal observations”, “Bench-marks”, “Specific gravity”, and
“Transparency of the water”. Only half a page relates to chemical
observations, five and a half pages to botany, and half a page to zoology. The
concluding remarks also encourage the collection of ethnological information
in remote communities.
The positioning of the depth sounding and sampling stations is prescribed
only generally.
In crossing the great ocean basins observations should be made at stations,
the positions of which are carefully determined, chosen so far as possible
at equal distances, the length of the intervals being of course dependent on
circumstances.
The simple determination of the depths of the ocean at tolerably regular
distances throughout the entire voyage is an object of such primary
importance that it should be carried out whenever possible, even when
circumstances may not admit of dredging or of anything beyond sounding.
The following is also advised:
Each station should have a special number associated with it in the
regular journal of the day's proceedings, and that number should be noted
prominently on everything connected with that station.
Interestingly, while it is recommended that the collection of subsurface
temperatures should be carried out with thermometers and with “Mr Siemen's
instrument” (see Sect. 6.3), it is implied that the collection of serial
information using thermometers would be time-consuming and that compromises
in sampling strategy might have to be made.
The guidance of the Circumnavigation Committee was primarily directed
towards the scientific party, but, as with all naval voyages, the
Challenger's commanding officer was issued with sailing orders indicating where the
vessel was to go and what tasks it should undertake and setting the rules under
which the vessel should operate. Challenger's sailing orders were issued to the captain
and to Professor Wyville Thomson both by the Navy Hydrographer, George Henry
Richards, and by Robert Hall, Naval Secretary of the Admiralty. These
instructions appear on pages 34 to 40 of Tizard et al. (1885a) and contain
the following instruction to Nares.
The main object of the voyage is to investigate the physical conditions of
the deep sea throughout the three great ocean basins, that is, to ascertain
the depth, temperature, circulation &c., to examine the physical and
chemical characteristics of their deposits and to determine the
distribution of organic life, throughout the areas traversed, at the
surface, at intermediate depths, and especially at the deep ocean bottoms.
As secondary but by no means unimportant objects are the hydrographical
examination of all the unknown or partially explored regions which you may
visit, a diligent search for all dangers which may be in or near your track,
with a view to expunging them from the charts or definitely determining
their positions, a careful series of magnetical and meteorological data, and
the observation and record generally of all those oceanic and atmospheric or
phenomena, which, when faithfully recorded, afford the means of compiling
practical information of the greatest importance to seamen. Your own
experience as the commander of a surveying ship, and the general rules which
have been issued from time to time by the hydrographical department for the
guidance of Admiralty Surveyors – copies of which are supplied to you –
obviate the necessity of entering into any detailed instructions on this
head, and I will only observe that on all the coasts along which you may
pass, and at all the ports which you may visit, I shall hope to receive from
you such surveys and such complete hydrographical information as
circumstances and the time at your disposal may enable you to accomplish.
If anyone of the various objects of the expedition is more important than
another, it may be said to be the accurate determination of the depth of the
ocean, for on this must depend many other problems of deep scientific
interest.
The route that was to be followed will be discussed later in this paper.
However, the part of the sailing orders describing it was prefaced with the
following.
The general route which it is proposed the ship should follow is shown on
a chart of the world which you are provided with, and although it is
possible that it may be found necessary to deviate in some degree from the
course there laid down and that you may not be able to adhere strictly to
the dates assigned in these instructions, yet they are to be observed as far
as circumstances will admit, and there must be no departure from the general
programme without the special sanction of their Lordships.
The Challenger voyage was a major event in the history of the Royal Navy's
Hydrographic Service and in the career of Richards (knighted in 1877 and
promoted to the rank of Admiral in 1885), as is remarked in Dawson (1885).
At the close of 1872, the chief event of Sir George Richards' official
career as hydrographer took place, in the sailing of the Challenger on a scientific
voyage of three years' duration. There is no doubt but that he was the prime
mover in that undertaking from start to finish, not only in a scientific
sense, owing to his position as one of the Council of the Royal Society, but
especially as regards the more practical and less pleasant portion of his
official duty, in successfully overcoming any monetary objection raised
against its advancement.
In a few remarks made in public, prior to the Challenger's departure, the hydrographer
remarked “that an expedition such as this, which had been the hope and
dream of his life, was now on the eve of realization”.
The only source of information on the Gazelle expedition that describes the voyage's
overall purpose can be found in the first volume of the published report
(Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät, 1889a), and it is clear that Gazelle's sailing orders were
drawn up with due consideration of the orders give to Challenger.
However, the opening lines of the preface
Quotations in English
from the Gazelle reports are the author's own translations. The author's translation
of the introduction to the Gazelle narrative is appended as the Supplement to
this paper. It is what is referred to as “freie Übersetzung” (free
translation), i.e. not literally word for word but conveying the meaning.
state the following:
In 1874, SMS Gazelle was sent on a two-year voyage, firstly to carry the German
expedition destined for the observation of the transit of Venus in December
1874 to the Kerguelen Islands and to take part in these observations and
secondly to promote oceanography and to conduct physical and oceanographic
research in the maritime sciences.
The importance of the transit of Venus in defining the early part of the
Gazelle expedition is a major difference between the two voyages. Gazelle was tasked with transporting
a team of six astronomers, led by Carl Börgen, and their equipment to
the observation site at Betsy Cove on the Island of Kerguelen in the South
Indian Ocean (approx. 49∘ S, 69∘ E). Following the
completion of the observations
A parallel set of observations was
made by German astronomers at Tschifu (now Yantai in Shandong Province of
PRC). At the time of the transit, Challenger was undergoing a long stay and refit in
Hong Kong.
, the astronomers and their equipment were to be taken to
Mauritius from whence they would return to Europe on a commercial vessel, and
Gazelle would continue her circumnavigation. The details of the astronomical
observations in Kerguelen are described in Duerbeck (2004). A more personal
account attributed to one of them, Ladislaus Weinek, is given in Davoust (1999). No further description of that astronomical work is given here.
The overall scientific rationale for the Gazelle's oceanographic and geophysical
observations is similar to that given for the Challenger voyage and indeed refers to
her voyage which had set off 18 months before Gazelle. The rationale for the
Gazelle's work is also set in the context of Maury's promotion of the collection of
systematic observations as follows:
Only at the beginning of the fifties did a new area of systematic
exploration of the seas begin on a strictly scientific basis. MAURY, the
director of the National Observatory in Washington, deserves the credit for
giving the first impetus to this and for having applied a systematic
approach. After collecting oceanic and meteorological observations made by
American seafarers between 1840 and 1850, he designed schemes to achieve a
uniform observation system, which was given to the American ships to record
their observations which were then returned to the central office after the
voyage and analysed. Furthermore, following his suggestion, the government
of the United States requested other seafaring nations to develop and
participate in oceanic and maritime-meteorological research. They were
invited to a conference in Brussels in August 1853, at which the first
agreements on this were made.
MAURY's efforts were particularly encouraged by the need for cable-laying
overseas, which arises from the trade and transport conditions of the new
era and which in turn requires precise knowledge of the depths of the sea,
the nature of the seabed and other physical properties of the ocean.
Three sets of sailing orders (dated 3 June and 13 November 1874 and 23 June 1875) were issued by the head of the Imperial German Navy, Admiral Albrecht
von Stosch.
It is clear from these orders that the German Admiralty was monitoring
Challenger's progress as there are references to it in the first sailing orders
After leaving Kiel, after the coal has been replenished in Plymouth if
necessary, you should choose the course so that it starts from the latitude
of the Azores almost halfway between the course of the English ship
“Challenger” and the European–African coast then to pass Madeira and the Canary
Islands in the west and, if necessary, to call at the Cape Verde Islands
to refill coal.
The most recent work by HMS “Challenger” in the North and South Atlantic Ocean
gives clues for deciding the importance of the positions with regard to
these observations. There is a copy of the report on this work up to the
Cape of Good Hope on board SMS “Gazelle”, from which the main sounding positions
can be taken, and since comparison observations relating to the earlier
American work are also included in this report, it offers the clues for
the decision of the expediency of the observation for certain stretches.
The third instructions state the following:
Consideration should also be given to the soundings along the line on which HMS
“Challenger” has recently been active in the western part of the Pacific Ocean
and will continue to do so in the northern and western parts in the near
future, as well as on the routes and areas already worked by the
“Gazelle”.
There follow detailed instructions relate to Gazelle making observations
to complement those made by Challenger in the Pacific around the Kermadec Islands,
Tonga, and Fiji.
The overall rationale for the voyage and the constraints within which
Gazelle operated are summarized in an early paragraph:
By the highest cabinet order of March 10th this year, S.M.S. Gazelle is
commissioned for scientific purposes, and the corvette has been given
special equipment for this purpose. In order to gain space, the guns have
been reduced to eight and the crew has been reduced. Nevertheless, S.M.S.
Gazelle must retain the character of a warship, and I expect that, Your Excellency,
the conventions of managing the ship will always be maintained, even under
the given circumstances.
Shortly thereafter there is a reference to a visit by Gazelle to the River Congo and
to Loanda (Luanda, Angola).
You will find the German expedition to explore Central Africa on the
Loanda coast. The appearance of the “Gazelle” there will increase the reputation of
the expedition among the population and can be of advantage for their work.
A further purpose should by no means be connected with the visit to this
coast, and your Excellency must avoid any demonstration which could give the
inhabitants the impression that you are pursuing political aims.
This must refer to the Loango expedition (1873–1876) (Güssfeldt et al.,
1888). The report of that expedition refers to observations by SMS Gazelle being
used to confirm the expeditions' magnetic observations. This wording of
sailing instructions hints, perhaps, that the voyage may also have had an
underlying “show the flag” purpose on behalf of the newly founded German
state and its navy but that they were trying not to give that impression.
The ships
Both Challenger and Gazelle were mid-sized warships, each with both sails and steam
propulsion. Sails were used primarily on passage, and steam propulsion
(Sennett and Oram, 1899) was available for holding position when making
observations. Both ships had already spent considerable time far from their
home countries. Challenger had been flagship of the Australia station from 1866 to
1870, and Gazelle had been sent to Japan in 1864 on a somewhat political mission to
protect a German ship that had been wrecked near Yokohama (von Tirpitz,
1919). Their visual similarity (Fig. 2) is striking, though Challenger appears to
have a higher freeboard than Gazelle.
Left: HMS Challenger in St Thomas, West Indies, March 1873 (archives of the
Natural History Museum, London). Right: SMS Gazelle (archives of Marineschule
Mürwik, Germany).
Challenger was a Pearl class corvette
A frigate was defined as a ship with a
single gun deck immediately below the main deck. A corvette was of similar
size, but the guns were mounted on the main deck.
– a class described by
Winfield (2014) as follows:
These “open battery” corvettes mounted all their guns on an exposed
weather deck but as in 18th century frigates there was a complete
unarmed deck below. … This provided plenty of berthing space
and led to the description of the ships as troop frigates because they could
transport soldiers when required.
Thus, it seems Challenger was ideally suited for modification for her new role.
Gazelle was an Arcona class frigate described at the beginning of Chapter II of
Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät (1889a) as follows:
S.M.S. “Gazelle”, although not one of the very latest ships of the Imperial Navy,
was one of the best and most suitable vehicles for the purposes of the
expedition in terms of space and size, in terms of facilities and sea
characteristics. Built entirely from wood, it belonged to the class of
“covered corvettes”, now called cruiser frigates, and as such offered a
spacious, airy and light deck below the upper deck, the battery, which was
intended for the placement of the guns. Being protected from sun and rain it
was suitable for scientific work and for setting up work and living rooms.
Both ships required modification to prepare them for their multi-year
voyages and for the changes from their normal naval duties. As noted, their
standard pre-expedition armaments were reduced, more substantially in the
case of Challenger, perhaps reflecting the exhortation in Gazelle's first sailing orders that
she “must retain the character of a warship”.
The complements of both ships were reduced but the Gazelle's from a much higher
original figure, suggesting Gazelle would have been much more crowded.
The principal characteristics of HMS Challenger and SMS Gazelle.
HMS ChallengerSMS GazelleVessel typePearl class corvettea Second of classArcona class covered frigateb Second of classDate Launched/commissionedChatham, 13 February 1858/6 May 1861Danzig (Gdansk), 19 December 1859/ Kiel, 15 May 1862Length (LOA)/beam/draught (m)68.7/12.3/5.772.0/13.0/6.5Displacement2137 t2391 tRigFull rig, 3 mast 1500 m2Full rig, 3 mast, 2200 m2PropulsioncTwo cylinder trunk engine 1450 HP 2 blade screwSingle expansion steam engine 1320 HP 2 blade screwRange/speed under steam??? @ 10.7 kts (19.8 km h-1)1150 nm @ 11 kts (20.4 km h-1)Complement as commissioned Expedition initial complement290 233 (175 naval personnel, 50 boysd, 6 scientists, 1 lab assistant, 1 domestic servant)e390 338 (officers, crew and 1 scientist)Armament as commissioned Expedition armament2×8 in. (20 cm), 1×68 lb (31 kg) (10 in., 25 cm) 2×68 lb (31 kg)28×68 pounder (31 kg) 8×68 pounder (31 kg)
a Winfield (2014). bhttps://second.wiki/wiki/arcona-klasse (last access: 6 June 2022). c Sennett and Oram (1899). d The Royal Navy accepted boy sailors with a minimum age of 15. See Smith (2021). e Rice (2001).
The commanding officers
The captains of both ships (Fig. 3) were experienced naval officers. George Nares,
the sixth child of a naval officer, was 41 years of age when Challenger sailed. He
already had experience of expedition work, having sailed as second mate
aboard HMS Resolute on the 1852–1854 Arctic search for the missing Franklin expedition.
Prior to his appointment to Challenger, he had served for 5 years as a surveyor on the
east coast of Australia and later in the Mediterranean. He was promoted to
the rank of Captain in 1869, and his appointment to the command of HMS
Challenger followed his involvement in oceanography in the Gulf of Suez and in the
Strait of Gibraltar (Carpenter, 1870)
Nares' 9-year-old son,
William Grant Nares, embarked on the voyage. Challenger carried a schoolmaster, Adam
Ebbels, to help with the crew's education, but he died at sea and was buried
in Bermuda. His replacement joined in Simonstown. William returned to the UK
from South Africa.
.
He, together with Lieutenant Pelham Aldrich, left Challenger when she reached Hong
Kong in December 1874 so that he could take up his appointment to command the
British Arctic expedition (1875/1876) aboard HMS Discovery and HMS Alert. Pelham Aldrich was
replaced in Hong Kong by Lieutenant Carpenter.
Nares' successor aboard Challenger was 44-year-old Captain Frank Tourle Thomson, who
had not had the expeditionary experience of Nares but who, nonetheless, went
on to co-author many of the Challenger narrative reports. He became commander of the
Royal Yacht Victoria and Albert from May 1877 until October 1884, the year in which he died
aged 54.
The commanders of the round-the-world voyages: left – Kapitän zur See
von Schleinitz (photo dated 1890) (http://www.tripota.uni-trier.de/single_picture.php?signatur=385_1275, last access: 9
April 2022), middle – George Nares (1872–1874) (archives of the National Portrait
Gallery, London), and right – Francis Tourle Thomson (1874–1876) (courtesy of Mary Evans
Picture Library).
The captain of SMS Gazelle, Georg von Schleinitz (https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/schleinitz-georg-gustav-freiherr-von-4542,
last access: 6 June 2022; https://second.wiki/wiki/georg_von_schleinitz, last access: 12 April 2022), had joined the Prussian Navy in 1845
at the age of 11. He had experience of working far from Europe as a flag
lieutenant on the Prussian expedition to China, Japan, and Siam between 1860
and 1862. In 1864, he was first officer on the covered corvette Arcona, sister ship
of the Gazelle.
In 1869, von Schleinitz became a corvette captain on Arcona, and in summer 1874 he
took command of Gazelle.
The fact that both Nares and von Schleinitz were naval surveyors led to them
both being at the ceremony to open the Suez Canal on 17 November 1869, von Schleinitz as Commander of the Arcona and Nares as commander of the HMS
Newport, a vessel that was involved in hydrographic surveying in the Mediterranean.
At the opening, Nares, contrived to make HMS Newport the first ship to transit the
canal from north to south, ahead of the intended first vessel, the French
Imperial yacht l'Aigle, carrying Empress Eugénie. Though officially reprimanded for
this breach of protocol, Nares undoubtedly gained some kudos from this
manoeuvre, and it seems unlikely that von Schleinitz would have been unaware
of the incident.
Ships' officers
A group photograph of the Challenger's officers and scientists (courtesy of
the archives of the Natural History Museum). Though they were unidentified in the Challenger reports they were identified by Rice (1986) as follows:
(1) Nares, (2) Wyville Thomson, (3) Wild, (4) Murray, (5) Moseley, (6) Willemoes-Suhm, (7) Buchanan, (8) Cdr. Maclear, (9) Lt. Aldrich. (10) Lt.
Bromley. (11) Lt. Bethel, (12) Sub-Lt. Balfour, (13) Sub-Lt. Channer, (14) Sub-Lt. Harston, (15) Nav. Sub-Lt. Havergal, (16) Nav. Sub-Lt. Swire, (17) Staff Surgeon Crosbie, (18) Surgeon Maclean, (19) Paymaster Richards, (20) Ass.
Paymaster Hynes, (21) Engineer Spry, (22) Ass. Engineer Howlett.
Absent from this photograph were Chief Engineer James Ferguson, Engineer
Allen, Sub Lt. Sloggett, Asst. Engineer Abbott.
The following are short biographies of some of Challenger's officers.
Second in command to Nares and Thomson was Commander John Fiot Lee Pearse Maclear. He was 34 years old and was the second son of Sir Thomas Maclear,
who in 1833 had been appointed Her Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good
Hope. John Maclear joined the navy as a 13-year-old cadet, with much of his
naval career being spent in foreign waters. After his return from
Challenger in 1878, John Maclear married Julia, a daughter of the eminent astronomer
Sir John Herschel.
Lieutenant Pelham Aldrich was 28 when he joined Challenger. He had joined the Royal
Navy as a 15-year-old cadet in 1859 and served aboard ships in the Pacific
and Mediterranean before his service in Challenger. He left the vessel in Hong Kong to
accompany Nares on the British Arctic expedition on which he led the sled
party to Ellesmere Island. His naval career ended with his appointment with
the rank of Rear Admiral and later Vice Admiral as the Superintendent of
Portsmouth Dockyard (1899–1903). He died in 1930 aged 86.
Lieutenant Arthur C. B. Bromley was born 16 September 1847 and entered the Navy as
a cadet in 1860. He was 25 when he joined Challenger. His career ended (rank of
Vice Admiral) in 1905 with him as Superintendent of the dockyard in Malta.
He died on 25 October 1909
Times archive 27 October 1909.
.
Lieutenant George R. Bethell was a Yorkshireman, born in 1849, and was 23 when
he joined Challenger. Compared with his fellow officers, his naval career was short. In
1885, with the rank of Commander he stood for parliament and was elected for
the Yorkshire constituency of Holderness, a position he held until 1900 when
he lost the seat over his views on the government's policy on South Africa.
He died in 1919.
Arguably the ship's officer who had the greatest influence on the scientific
work of Challenger was Thomas Tizard. He had entered the Royal Navy by competitive
examination in 1854 (aged 15) and 6 years later started his career as a
surveyor in the Mediterranean and was aboard HMS Newport with Nares at the opening
of the Suez Canal in 1869. He was navigator and chief surveyor aboard
Challenger and was responsible for the current measurements – he had earlier
experience of researching currents in the Strait of Gibraltar. The
obituary in the Geographical Journal (A.M.F., 1924) makes these comments:
His duties involved the closest associations with the
leader of the expedition and of the scientific staff in decisions bearing on
the carrying out of the objectives of the expedition. From the outset he
closely identified himself with every undertaking with which the expedition
was concerned. As time went on, the influence he exerted was increasingly
apparent.
When Nares left Challenger in 1875, it was clear that Tizard, who was identified by
Wyville Thomson as the “chief of the naval scientific staff” (Wyville Thomson, 1878), had become indispensable to the continuity and presumably
the success of the voyage's work.
After the Challenger voyage, the Admiralty seconded him to work with John Murray on
the compilation and publication of the narrative and of the oceanographical
and hydrographical results. In 1891 he was elected a fellow of the Royal
Society.
Gazelle's officers are listed as follows in Volume 1 of the narrative – their
ranks are those while aboard Gazelle, though many were later promoted.
Captain zur See
The term “zur See” was used in the Imperial
German Navy to distinguish the ranks from the equivalent ones in the Army.
,
Baron von Schleinitz as Commandant,
Lieutenant Captain Dietert as First Officer,
Lieutenant Captain Jeschke as Navigational Officer,
Lieutenant Captain, Bendemann,
Lieutenant zur See, Strauch,
Lieutenant zur See, Rittmeyer,
Sub-lieutenant zur See, von Ahlefeld,
Sub-lieutenant zur See, Wachenhusen,
Sub-lieutenant zur See, Credner,
Sub-lieutenant zur See, Breusing,
Sub-lieutenant zur See, von Seelhorst,
Sub-Lieutenant zur See, Zeye,
Navy medical officer, Dr. Naumann,
Marine assistant doctor, Dr. Huesker,
Navy underpaid master, Lindenberg.
Their responsibilities for the scientific work were also listed in the
narrative of the voyage, and the following are some biographical details.
Lieutenant Captain Conrad Dietert (5 October 1844–15 September 1906) was the First
Officer under von Schleinitz but does not appear to have had any scientific
responsibilities.
Lieutenant (Rudolf?) Rittmeyer and Sub Lt. Conrad von Seelhorst (5 April 1853–6 July 1930; https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_von_Seelhorst, last access: 6 June 2022) were responsible for the meteorological
observations and for astronomy. Though it is not specified in the reports,
we might speculate that the astronomical work could have involved support of
the astronomers who observed the transit of Venus as well as including any
other astronomical phenomena observed during the voyage (aurora australis,
meteor showers) (Sperberg, 2021). The sailing orders also state the following:
In addition to frequent observations of lunar distances, investigations
are also to be carried out on the possibility of successfully using star
sights and the eclipses of Jupiter's moon, etc. for the purpose of deriving the
geographical longitude, and this is to be reported on later.
Von Seelhorst was invalided out of the Navy in 1878 with a serious lung
condition but went on to have an academic career in agriculture in
Göttingen.
Captain Lieutenant Jeschke, Lieutenant zur See Breusing and Lieutenant zur See Zeye were
responsible for navigation as it related to surveying, sounding (but not
including deep-sea sounding), documenting coastlines, and sailing instructions,
as well as the astronomical and magnetic observations.
Lieutenant Captain Felix von Bendemann (8 August 1848–31 October 1915; https://wp-de.wikideck.com/Felix_von_Bendemann, last access: 6 June 2022) and Lieutenant Wachenhusen were responsible for the oceanographic measurements, such as
deep-sea soundings, temperature, and specific gravity measurements,
determining the chemical composition of seawater and observations of
currents and tides. Bendemann had been one of the first graduates of the new
naval academy in Kiel.
Lieutenant Franz Strauch (11 April 1846–12 August 1928; https://second.wiki/wiki/franz_strauch, last
access: 6 June 2022) was primarily responsible for the ethnological work. He
had joined the Prussian Navy as a cadet in 1864. His interests in ethnology
continued after the Gazelle voyage, and he became a link between the (Imperial) Navy
and the Ethnology Museum in Berlin. The relationship between the Navy and
ethnology is revealed in Zimmermann (2001).
The Navy's collecting duties developed from an occasional activity for
officers during their leisure time to an integral part of its operations. In
1874 Bastian persuaded the Navy to order the surveying ship SMS Gazelle bound for
the South Pacific, to acquire “everything collectible” from ports of call.
A lieutenant Franz Strauch assigned to the Gazelle did much ethnographic collecting
for the museum and developed a lifelong interest in anthropology. He
eventually rose to the rank of Rear-Admiral and acted as a key intermediary
between the Navy and the Museum of Ethnology.
Zimmermann comments that the close relationship between the Navy and the
Museum continued into the 20th century.
Lieutenant Hunold von Ahelefeld (5 March 1851–5 September 1919;
https://second.wiki/wiki/hunold_von_ahlefeld, last access: 6 June 2022) was responsible for
gravity measurements (Pendel Beobachtungen) and for topography. He had
joined the Prussian Navy as a cadet in 1867, and after his service on
Gazelle he became involved with naval shipyards before retiring in 1907. In his work he was assisted by Lieutenant Credner.
The ship carried two medical officers, Dr. Neumann and Dr. Huesker. Neumann
assisted with the botany, while Huesker did the geological and
anthropological research.
The scientists who joined the voyages
Much has already been written about the Challenger's six scientists (Aitken and Foulc,
2019), and so they will be described only briefly here.
Charles Wyville Thomson was leader of the scientific party and was 42 when
Challenger sailed. He was a Scot, born in Linlithgow, a few miles east of Edinburgh 5 March 1830. He was christened Wyville Thomas Charles Thomson (he appears as
Wyville Charles Thomson in the 1881 census records) but apparently changed
his name to Charles Wyville Thomson in 1876 when he was knighted. This is
the name by which he is now known and which appears in the all the
Challenger reports.
According to anonymous (1876), he left school in 1845 and spent the next 3 years studying medicine at Edinburgh University, following in the footsteps
of his father, a surgeon with the East India Company. His intense studies
affected his health, and, as an easier option, in 1850 he began lecturing in
botany at the University of Aberdeen, which conferred on him a Doctor of Laws
(LL.D.) degree. He married Jane Dawson in 1854, and their son Frank was born
in 1860. Until he assumed responsibility for the scientific work of HMS
Challenger in 1872, he had broadened his scientific interests into chemistry,
mineralogy, palaeontology, and zoology, holding academic positions in Cork,
Belfast, and Edinburgh. His interests also grew in wider educational matters,
in the arts, and in local politics and law.
Perhaps the spark that led to the Challenger voyage lay in a discussion between Wyville
Thomson and Carpenter in 1868 when Wyville Thomson suggested that the
deep-sea floor would be a rich hunting ground for naturalists. He urged
Carpenter to use his influence to mount an expedition, and this he did in a
letter to the President of the Royal Society, as documented in Wyville
Thomson, 1873.
John Young Buchanan was the expedition's chemist and also took responsibility
for the physical measurements (water temperature and specific gravity)
except those such as meteorological measurements, which were the
responsibility of the ship's officers. He was also an accomplished
mineralogist. Born on 20 February 1844, he was the second son of a well-to-do
Glasgow family and was 28 at the start of the voyage. In 1863, he graduated
with an arts degree from Glasgow University before studying chemistry in
Germany at Marburg and Bonn and then Leipzig before moving to Paris. He
returned to Scotland around 1870 as assistant to the Professor of Chemistry
at the University of Edinburgh, Alexander Crum Brown. So, he came to the
Challenger expedition as someone who was already widely travelled and with eclectic
interests.
Henry Nottidge Moseley was born in Wandsworth in South London on 14 November 1844 and so was 28 when he joined Challenger. The most complete description
of his life is to be found in a memoir by the zoologist Gilbert Bourne
(Bourne, 1892) as an introduction to Moseley's narrative of the Challenger voyage (Moseley, 1892). His
father, also Henry, as well as being a clergyman, was an eminent
mathematician and a fellow of the Royal Society. Henry Moseley was educated at
Harrow School and then at Exeter College, Oxford (1864–1868), graduating with a
first-class degree in natural sciences, though the initial intention had
been for him to study mathematics or classics. The move to science was prompted
by his interest in natural history as a hobby that started when he was at
school and continued in Oxford. After graduation, he was awarded a travelling
fellowship that took him in 1868 to work in Vienna. He then enrolled as a
medical student in London but returned to the continent in 1871 to work in
Leipzig. On his return to London in autumn that year, he was invited to join
the British Government's Eclipse expedition to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) (total
solar eclipse, 12 December), on which he acted as a naturalist and took
part in the astronomical observations
Coincidentally, J. F. L. P Maclear
was also a member of the 1871 Eclipse expedition, perhaps an additional
influence on Moseley's selection for the Challenger voyage. (Anonymous, 1872).
. So,
by the time he was selected to join Challenger, he was already well travelled and had
wide scientific interests and experience. His scientific character is
perhaps revealed by this comment by Tizard.
Whenever they arrived at a new place Moseley would ask his colleagues what
they intended to work at so that he might undertake what they did not care
for. His anxiety was that the whole ground should be covered, and he was
willing to leave all the more apparently interesting work to others,
reserving for himself what they rejected. It came about that he did more
work than anybody else on the expedition, though his friend von
Willemoes-Suhm might have run close had he survived.
These were the three British-born members of the scientific party. All
were from relatively affluent backgrounds.
John Murray was born on 3 March 1841 in Cobourg, now in Ontario, Canada. He
was the second son of an accountant who had emigrated to Canada in 1834.
After school and college in Cobourg, he returned to Scotland aged 17 to
continue his education, enrolling to read medicine at Edinburgh University in
1864. Much of Murray's character is revealed in the obituary notice by George Agassiz, the eldest son of the famous oceanographer Alexander Agassiz (Agassiz,
1917), who comments on Murray's character.
Impatient of dogmatic authority, he was somewhat scornful of inherited
tradition and treated his prescribed studies with a cheerful lack of
consideration. For even in those days, he desired to find out things for
himself and delve for knowledge independently.
He gained his scientific knowledge through contact with the “small group of
scientific men who made Edinburgh famous”, a circle that expanded to include
the writer Robert Louis Stevenson. Armed with that broad and inquisitive
nature, but without a degree, in 1868 he embarked as surgeon on the Scottish
whaling ship Jan Mayen on a 7-month voyage to the Arctic. On his return, he completed
his studies in geology at Edinburgh University.
In 1872 he was recruited by Wyville Thomson to collect and prepare the
scientific equipment for the Challenger voyage.
Rudolf von Willemoes-Suhm at age 25 was the youngest of the scientific
party, born in Glückstadt, Schleswig Holstein, then part of Prussia, on
11 September 1847. His expertise had been gained entirely at German
universities.
In 1872 he joined the Danish Phoenix expedition studying vertebrates and
polychaetes around the Faroe Islands. On its return journey, the ship called
at Edinburgh on 10 October 1872, and on the 11th Willemoes-Suhm was
invited to dinner by Wyville Thomson and his wife. Clearly impressed,
Wyville Thomson said that if Thomas Huxley could persuade the Admiralty,
then Willemoes-Suhm could join the Challenger expedition. Willemoes-Suhm took the
train to London and met Huxley. By the 20 October he received the
confirmatory telegram and on the 19 November was aboard Challenger in
Sheerness (von Willemoes-Suhm, 1877). This serendipitous and rapid
engagement suggests that Willemoes-Suhm was a very impressive young man.
The oldest member of the scientific party was Jean Jacques Wild, who was a
Swiss national born in Zurich in 1828 and who later anglicized his name to
John James Wild. There is much less known about the pre-Challenger life of Wild than
about the other civilian members of the party. It is thought that Wyville Thomson may have encountered Wild in Belfast.
Gazelle carried only one specialist civilian scientist apart from the astronomers
who were, in effect, passengers from Kiel to Kerguelen and Mauritius, and so
virtually all the scientific work of the voyage was carried out by serving
naval officers under the leadership of von Schleinitz.
That single scientist was the 29-year-old zoologist Théophil Studer (27 November 1845–12 February 1922; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9ophile_Rudolphe_Studer, last access: 6 June 2022), a Swiss
ornithologist and the curator of the zoological collections and later
professor at the Natural History Museum in Berne. He took part in the
scientific and zoological work during the entire trip, though he had not
joined the vessel with this intention. He had meant to take part in
operations as a member of the transit of Venus expedition studying the fauna
and flora of Kerguelen. However, from the beginning of the journey he showed
such great expertise in zoological research that it was thought essential
that he remain on board. This was approved by “a higher authority”
(presumably the German Admiralty) and the University of Bern, and he
remained on board until the end of the voyage.
He went on to publish reports on Ophiuroidea and on the isopods and other
crustaceans collected between the west coast of Africa and the Cape of Good
Hope.
The ship's doctor, Friedrich Carl Naumann (https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000046495, last
access: 6 June 2022) (born 1841), had trained in medicine and natural
sciences at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg before joining the
(Prussian) Navy as a fleet surgeon. Before joining the Gazelle he had been on the
1869–1871 voyage of the SMS Medusa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Medusa_(1864), last access: 6 June 2022), Gazelle's sister ship, to South America
and into the Pacific where he made botanical collections mainly in Japan and
Hong Kong. He was responsible for the botanical collections from Gazelle. The
ship's assistant doctor Carl Huesker, about whom little is
known, helped with the zoological, botanical, geological, and anthropological
research.
Though Challenger carried a party of expert scientists, since she was a survey vessel,
the officers were very much involved in making the scientific observations,
and indeed Thomson was involved in the preparation and publication of the
narrative reports of the expedition.
We have already examined Nares' role; in addition, Aldrich, Bromley, Bethell,
and Carpenter had responsibility for sounding, seabed sampling, and
temperature measurements. The other officers who would have been concerned
with the scientific work were Maclear, who had responsibility for the
magnetic observations which included intercalibrations with shore stations
in South Africa and Hong Kong, and Bromley, who took a particular interest in
meteorology and maintained a personal log. Tizard did a particular study of
the meteorology of Japan quite independent of the Challenger's objectives (Tizard,
1876).
Challenger's scientific activities were thus a true joint enterprise between officers
and civilian scientists.
The voyages, routes, and ports
Though both vessels circumnavigated the earth, their tracks, as shown in
Fig. 1, were markedly different. The routes and port calls were dictated
both by scientific objectives and in the case of Gazelle by information received
in preliminary reports from Challenger. A major logistical consideration for both
ships was that regular calls at suitable ports were needed to replenish coal
supplies and provisions. There were also timing constraints, most noticeable
for Gazelle set by the time of the transit of Venus (November 1874) and for both
vessels to avoid high southern latitudes in winter.
Scientific considerations
We can compare the routes in terms of their ability to achieve the following
broad objectives:
revealing the deep-sea bathymetry and distribution of seabed
types in support of cable routing;
sampling a wide variety of ocean circulation regimes;
sampling deep water and shelf sea biology;
studying the ethnology, flora, fauna, and geology of
rarely visited islands.
The first of these could only be addressed in the most general of sense
since there is no way that a few hundred soundings can define global-scale
bathymetry. In terms of potential cable routes, only Challenger's routes across the
North and South Atlantic and North Pacific could be said to approach
studying potential routes. The Pacific crossing, however, fails to cover the
approach to the North American continent. Despite these shortcomings, both
ships' collection of seabed samples greatly improved knowledge of the types
of deep-sea sediments and their geographical and depth distributions,
information relevant to the selection of cable routes.
Most of Challenger's North Atlantic stations were occupied during what was regarded as
a training and trials phase. But in terms of exploration of the earth's
major current systems, they added several crossings of the Gulf Stream and
North Atlantic Current. Challenger also crossed the East Australian Current, the
Kuroshio, and the Brazil Current. Gazelle made very few observations in western
boundary regions.
Both vessels covered a wide range of latitudes, though neither entered the
northern hemisphere subpolar regions. Challenger crossed the major structures of the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current and occupied its southernmost station on
14 February 1874 at 65∘42′ S, 79∘49′ E
(1 1/2 miles (2.4 km) from the edge of the pack ice). Gazelle, by contrast, ventured
no further than about 52∘ S.
It should be remembered that neither vessel occupied stations close enough
together to reveal the sharp frontal structures that we now know to
characterize these major current systems. Remarkably, however, the Gazelle measured
surface temperature and salinity (actually specific gravity) every 2 h
throughout the voyage. These observations are, surprisingly, tabulated in
the meteorology report (Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät, 1890) (Appendix B), but no positions are recorded
corresponding with these measurements, and they have never been analysed.
The Pacific sectors of the two voyages were markedly different. Challenger spent a
significant time in the western Pacific between Australia and Japan crossing
the Equator three times. Gazelle entered the Pacific north of Australia and spend
over 100 d surveying around New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago. The
motivation for this was almost certainly with a view to assessing the
commercial/colonial potential of the area (Overlack, 1973; Ohff, 2008,
2015). After visiting Brisbane and Auckland and making a northward excursion
to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, Gazelle headed across the South Pacific to the Strait of
Magellan. Challenger by contrast headed east from Japan on approx. 35∘ N and
then southwards via the what the Challenger reports refer to as the Sandwich Islands,
the name given to the islands by Captain Cook but which was gradually being
replaced by the name Hawaii, particularly after the signing of the
Reciprocity Agreement with the USA in January 1875, 6 months before
Challenger arrived.
After their passages through the Strait of Magellan, both vessels called at
Montevideo, as was mentioned in the Introduction, and then returned to
Europe by different routes – Challenger taking 88 d to reach Portsmouth and
Gazelle 55 d to Plymouth.
Both ships appear to have deviated substantially from the route that was
originally intended. For Challenger this occurred in the North Pacific. Rather than
crossing from Japan to Vancouver Island and studying the California Current
on her way to Cape Horn, Challenger headed to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) and thence
to Valparaiso via Tahiti and Juan Fernandez. There are tantalizing comments
in Joe Matkin's letters that relate to this sector of the voyage. On p. 25 of
At Sea with the Scientifics he remarks
We are to have warm clothing sent out to the Cape of Good Hope in a year's
time, and it will be issued before going down amongst the ice, or rather
lent, for it will be taken away as soon as we reach the latitude of
Melbourne and again issued at Petrapolowski (Petrapavlovsk) before going
through the Bering Straits. We are also to have extra pay in the cold
weather.
On p. 122 he comments again about the voyage in the North Pacific:
on to Yodo (Osaka) Japan after which the Kuril Islands and
Petrapolopsky (Petrapavlovsk) the cold capital of Kamchatka, thence Aleutian
islands, Bering Straits and down to Vancouver about May 1875 after which we
begin again.
One wonders whether this change of plan was brought about by the replacement
of Nares, who had experience of high latitudes, in Hong Kong.
For Gazelle the departure from the plan concerned the high southern latitudes.
There are clear indications in Gazelle's sailing orders that observations were
planned far to the south. The first set makes this statement:
The bank or ridge in the ocean, which according to the latest
investigations of the “Challenger” apparently connects the Kerguelen and
MacDonald
MacDonald Island lies at 53∘ S.
Islands,
should be examined more closely, particularly temperature conditions and
currents.
If ice is suspected, or if S.M.S. “Gazelle” is near icebergs,
frequent and precise determinations of salinity and temperature must be
made.
Indeed, the sailing instructions suggest that it was intended that the
vessel might approach the Antarctic continent.
The course is to be taken in such a way that SMS “Gazelle” does not occupy
similar positions to those of the “Challenger”, namely in the pack ice near the
presumed Termination Land
Part of Wilkes Land in East Antarctica.
but rather in the vicinity of Enderby
Coasts at around
67∘30′ S.
or Kemp's Land can advance. Under all circumstances,
however, the S.M.S. “Gazelle” command must ensure that the ship does not get caught
in pack ice or even get trapped in it, even if only for a while.
In the second set, received in Cape Town, these references to the Southern
Ocean are replaced:
leaving the port of Mauritius around the middle of March
1875, you have to endeavour to reach the parallel of latitude of
30∘ by the shortest route in order, following the same, to cross
the Indian Ocean to the east
Both vessels left a geographical legacy in the naming of features (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/gazetteer/, last access: 6 June 2022);
Challenger most notably for the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench and Gazelle particularly
around New Guinea with the naming of the Gazelle peninsular and the von
Schleinitz range of mountains in New Ireland and the later-named Gazelle
Fracture Zone in the South Indian Ocean.
Logistics and statistics
Though the two vessels circumnavigated the world and made similar
observations, the voyages differed in many respects, most notably in their
durations. Challenger took 1250 d from 21 December 1872 to 24 May 1876 and Gazelle 678 d from
21 June 1874 to 28 May 1876. The distances sailed were markedly different
too, Challenger 68 590 nm and Gazelle approximately 36 000 nm. Though the two ships are noted
for sailing around the globe, they spent a great deal of time in port (to
replenish supplies, including coal, to send and receive mail to send samples
and equipment home, and to undergo repairs). Challenger spent 522 d in port or
exploring islands and land masses. The figure for Gazelle was 297 d. Since a
central element of both voyages was to explore rarely visited regions, many
of the port calls were in places that could provide little support for the
ships or respite for the officers and crew (Table A1 in Appendix A).
It is noteworthy that while Challenger spent a month or more in Simonstown (South
Africa), in Sydney (Australia), in Hong Kong, and in Yokohama, the Gazelle only had
extended stays around Kerguelen in the inhospitable sub-Antarctic and
exploring New Guinea and its surrounding islands. These differences are
graphically summarized in Fig. 5, and their implications will be explored
more fully in Sect. 7.
Time spent in ports and periods of extensive surveys (grey
colouring, sequence reads clockwise) compared with time at sea (coloured
sectors, Atlantic (blue), Indian and Southern (yellow), Pacific (brown)). Format
follows that used by Aitken and Foulc (2019). Dates in port are in Table A1.
Station routine
The time at sea on both ships was marked by the occupation of stations, and
each must have fallen into a well-practised sequence of operations. This
routine can be deduced from the summary narrative of Challenger (Wyville Thomson,
1878), and it is reasonable to assume that Gazelle would have operated similarly.
Almost all station work was carried out during daylight hours, with the
preparations usually starting between 06:00 and 08:00. Stations in deep water
typically took between 10 and 12 h. First came the firing of the boilers,
so that the steam propulsion could be used to keep the vessel head to wind
on station and the donkey engine to be used to haul in the lines. With
sailed furled, the first observation was to take a depth sounding and
recover a sample to reveal the nature of the seabed. This was followed by
water sampling and temperature measurements using bucket sampling at the
surface and slip bottles and thermometers at depth. Current drift was
measured, biological net samples taken, and finally dredging for biological
and geological samples. This presumably was left to last so that the
scientists would have time to sort and preserve the samples and the crew
clear the deck while on passage towards the next station.
The very different water sampling and temperature measurement strategies on
Challenger and Gazelle are demonstrated in the figure of water sample distributions in the
supplementary information provided in Gould and Cunningham (2021). Gazelle sampled
only three horizons (surface, 100 fm
1 fathom (fm) = 6 ft = 1.8288 m.
, and near the seabed). Challenger sampled six horizons
between the surface and 1000 fm, but this regime started only after station
90 at the end of July 1873, resulting in the North Atlantic being
comparatively poorly sampled.
The balance between conservatism and innovation
The planning of these two multi-year voyages took place in a time of rapid
scientific and technological advances, and it might have seemed natural for
the most recent technological devices to be employed. Yet, a balance had to
be struck between using methods and instrumentation that were well tried,
robust and so could be easily maintained without access to specialist
skills and those that were innovative and which might give new insights.
For both expeditions, the emphasis seems to have been on reliability. This
was perhaps especially true of Gazelle, which carried only one scientist.
Rope vs. wire
The most obvious generic technology that could have been used was
multistrand wire rope rather than traditional hemp sounding and dredging
lines. Multistrand wire rope had been increasingly used in bridge building
and mining since the mid-19th century and was also being used in
submarine telegraph cables. However, use at sea for the deployment and
recovery of equipment where it would have to be repeatedly wound on and off
winches and would be subject to corrosion would have been a high risk, and
therefore Challenger and Gazelle both opted to retain hemp line. Challenger started the voyage with
20 000 fm of No. 1
sounding line and took on board a further 20 000 fm. A total of 26 000 fm
was used; 64 000 fm of No. 2 sounding line was embarked and 34 000 fm expended.
The Gazelle report makes these remarks:
The sounding lines delivered by the English shipyard had a length of
10 000 English fathoms and were made from Italian hemp, three-strand, cable
lay, 27 yarns. Their circumference was 1 in. (25.4 mm), the breaking load
dry 792, wet 702 kg. These lines were used exclusively during the entire
voyage to the deep-sea explorations, without ever breaking. In three cases
the line brought 125 kg of sounding weights back to the surface from
depths of more than 4500 m when the sounding device had not worked when
it hit the bottom. The lines came on board in lengths of 1000 fathoms
spooled on small drums and were split in lengths of 125 fathoms with double
short splices (cut splice). On board a drum for 4000 fathoms was made, and
the line held on this ready for use. Initially it was intended to mark the
line in metres in order to indicate the depths in the measure prescribed in
the Imperial Navy; however, this was abandoned and the English fathom
measure, according to which the depths are given in most of the existing
nautical charts, was retained. The line was marked accordingly from 25 to
25(?)
Presumably this indicates an illegible or erroneous
manuscript entry. The second value should perhaps be 75.
fathoms. As marks
for 100 fathoms each, strips of canvas that protruded from the line and
showed a consecutive number applied with oil paint were found to be suitable
for the purpose. The 25 and 75 fathom marks were marked with blue and the 50
fathom marks with red, with flag cloth tucked into the rope stands.
Ritchie (2000) comments that the Challenger used tried and trusted observation
methods with soundings made using rope and the so-called timed
methods
The time taken for each 25 fm. length of line to run out
in free-fall with the sounder weight taking it towards the seabed. When the
rate of descent suddenly slowed, it indicated that the sounder had hit the
bottom. When hauled in until an increase in tension was felt, the depth
could be recorded.
.
Photography
The Challenger expedition was the first to carry an official photographer. In fact,
there were three photographers at various times, Caleb Newbold, Frederick
Hodgeson, and Jesse Lay. The expedition's photographs were originally
catalogued by John Horsburgh (1885). There is a more recent catalogue of
the over 800 photographs (Brunton, 1994). The original plates and prints are
now widely scattered, and Brunton lists 10 persons or institutions as owners.
The majority of these photographs are landscapes, a significant number would
be classified as ethnological, and some are of groups of scientists,
officers, crew, or visitors. None show the interior of the vessel, nor the
conduct of its seagoing science activities. This might well be due, in the
former case, to the long exposure times needed which would have required the
subjects to pose or to the inadequate lighting below decks and
inappropriate camera lenses. An extensive discussion of the use of
photography aboard Challenger is given by Jones (2019).
Photographs were also taken on the Gazelle expedition, but the report recounts a sad
outcome.
(Privy Councilor HARTMANN) not only took on in the most courteous manner,
the processing of the S.M.S. Gazelle's collected anthropological material,
which work is set down in a special appendix. He also succeeded, in
processing various photographic recordings of an anthropological and
ethnological nature made on the trip. This was despite them being damaged
due to the adverse climatic and weather conditions of the tropics and at sea
where they had suffered so much from the long storage that they no longer
appeared viable for reproduction. The imperfect plates supplemented the
areas mentioned with the help of his excellent knowledge – to produce
drawings which made it possible to reproduce them in this work.
There are many photographs of the astronomical work on Kerguelen (Duerbeck,
2004), and so it seems likely that those plates were shipped back to Germany
from Mauritius and so avoided the damage reported above.
Oceanographic equipment
The equipment used to make oceanographic observations on the two vessels
(water sampling bottles, deep-sea thermometers, dredges, sounding weights)
was virtually identical and represented the state of the art in
instrumentation at the time as used and refined by Wyville Thomson and
Carpenter. Indeed, Gazelle called in Plymouth on her outward voyage to collect much
of her scientific equipment.
S.M.S. Gazelle was equipped with the two sounding devices most commonly used for
deep-sea sounding, the BAILLIE sounder and the HYDRA sounder, three of
the former type and one of the latter. However, the HYDRA sounder was only
used once, and since it did not work properly, all further measurements at
great depths were carried out with the Baillie apparatus. The sounding
equipment as well as the deep thermometer was all obtained from England, as
there was no experience with this in Germany. With the kind co-operation of
the Hydrographic Office in London, all the sounding devices were provided by
the Royal Shipyard Chatham and delivered to the “Gazelle” when she was in
Plymouth.
The rigging and means of deployment of the equipment were also virtually
identical to those used on Challenger as is demonstrated in Fig. 6, which shows the
elastic accumulator used as a shock absorber.
Reproduction of Fig. 3 (p. 16) of the Gazelle narrative showing the
deployment of a Baillie sounder.
Perhaps the most innovative technique used on either vessel was an attempt
on Gazelle to measure the height and period of waves by making measurements of the
ship's rise and fall using a very sensitive aneroid barometer. This activity
is described briefly in Vol. 2 of Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät (1888) but,
unsurprisingly, was not successful. (A 1 m vertical displacement of the ship
would have resulted in a pressure change of only 11 Pa (0.11 mbar). This
is comparable with the pressure variations that would be caused by turbulent
wind flow around the ship, and these would have been hard to separate from
changes caused by waves.) The problem of recording sea waves from a ship was
not solved until the development of the shipborne wave recorder by Tucker (1952), who refers to the failed attempt by Gazelle.
In some ways the deep-sea thermometers used on both voyages were
experimental in that their performance and ability to faithfully record the
temperature profiles, particularly when the vertical variations were not
monotonic, was not fully understood. Challenger embarked 35 “protected” thermometers
to which a further 69 were added at intermediate ports and 48 “expended” –
presumably lost or broken. The vast majority were the double-bulb version of
Six's thermometer known as the Miller-Casella thermometer which recorded
maximum and minimum temperatures. The true reversing thermometer was being
developed by Negretti and Zambra at the time of the Challenger voyage, and several were
sent to the ship for comparison with the Miller-Casellas.
Several thermometers for use in the apparatus were forwarded from time to
time. A greater number were found broken when they reached the ship, owing
either to imperfect packing or negligence in the transport, but a sufficient
number arrived in safety to admit of their having a fair trial.
Gazelle had 22 Miller-Casella thermometers and one Negretti-Zambra, presumably,
sourced as were Challenger's, from Chatham and loaded in Plymouth. The subsequent
controversies about the interpretation of the temperature measurements are
summarized in Deacon (1971).
By the 1870s the rapid spread of the submarine telegraph cable network had
stimulated interest in using electrical apparatus in the ocean. The leading
innovator in this field was the Anglo-German William (Carl Wilhelm) Siemens
(1823–1883, born in Germany but who moved to London in 1843; Thurston, 1884).
He developed the bathometer: effectively the forerunner of the
conductivity–temperature–depth (CTD) probes that started to replace the
reversing thermometers in the 1960s. The bathometer measured temperature
using a sensor in one arm of a Wheatstone bridge, and one of the instruments
was used on Challenger and its comparison with thermometers reported. The bathometer
was used more extensively by Alexander Agassiz aboard the USS Blake in 1881 and
reported by Siemens (1882). The Challenger instrument's performance was reported
(Narrative, Vol. 1 Part 1) as follows:
Several more or less successful observations were made with this
instrument during the cruise, which agreed fairly well with those made by
the protected thermometers. No permanent place was fitted for the
galvanometer or apparatus, and in consequence continuous and careful
observations were not made. When accurate temperature observations are
required from intermediate depths, this instrument is especially valuable,
and it will in all probability be extensively used in future deep-sea
investigations.
This prescient observation might well be seen as the start point for
modern-day electronic ocean science. Challenger also carried two other experimental
devices. One, designed by Siemens, measured the depth to which light
penetrated by exposing light-sensitive paper for a fixed length of time. The
second, Buchanan's piezometer, sought to separate the effects of pressure and
temperature (Rice, 2001). Neither of these devices was used routinely.
Finally, there was one technology which arrived just too late to be employed
aboard Challenger and Gazelle. This was the sounding machine developed by Sir William Thomson
(later Lord Kelvin). A prototype was provided to the British Admiralty for
use on the Challenger expedition but was declined as not being sufficiently reliable
for use on such a long voyage. However, a version of the Kelvin machine
modified by the Berlin instrument maker Carl Bamberg was being used aboard
USS Tuscarora in the North Pacific in 1874 (Theberge, 2014), and the fact that these
483 soundings had been made was a factor in the change of Challenger's route across
the North Pacific. Spry (1876) makes this statement:
Last year (1874) the United States government dispatched the steam vessel
Tuscarora on a deep-sea sounding cruise between San Francisco, the Sandwich Islands
and the coast of Japan, with instructions on their return route to complete
a line of soundings from Yokohama extending in a great circle to the north,
passing along the islands of the Aleutian group and so towards Puget Sound
with a view to finding a practical cable route across. The course therefore
selected by us was one intermediate between these two (through the parallel
of 35∘ N latitude) until reaching 155∘ W longitude.
The fact that Tuscarora made more soundings in a few months than
Challenger made in almost 4 years shows the advantages of a Kelvin-type sounding
machine. Arguably had the Challenger and Gazelle voyages been a few years later, both might
have used sounding machines and thus saved considerable station time.
Divergence of scientific foci
Though the core scientific observations of Challenger and Gazelle were similar, in other
respects there were distinct differences, which might be accounted for
largely by Challenger carrying a team of scientists while Gazelle carried naval officers and
surveyors. Thus, the major focus of Challenger was marine biology and chemistry driven
by the scientists on board. Gazelle made similar measurements of seawater
properties and collected biological and geological samples for later
analysis but also made extensive geophysical (gravity and geomagnetic)
measurements better aligned to the interests and experience of the naval
surveyors she carried. It is interesting to note that the Gazelle's magnetic
equipment was carefully calibrated in Berlin before the voyage and that the
sailing orders include encouragement to compare them with shore-based
observatories at the Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius and with the site
established on Kerguelen. Such an intercalibration is now well recognized as
good scientific practice.
Health and safety
Nineteenth-century ships were not safe places. Ships' companies on vessels
such as Challenger and Gazelle had to deal with both the hazards of working aloft to set and
furl the sails and managing the steam engines, both those for
propulsion and the donkey engines used to provide mechanical assistance on
deck. The crews included a significant number of young cadets (boys) in
their mid-teens with little experience. Warships were traditionally crowded,
and though they carried doctors (surgeons), medical care and the
understanding of disease was rudimentary by present-day standards. The food,
without refrigeration, was similarly basic and monotonous. The two voyages
discussed here covered a wide range of climatic conditions, ranging from the
tropics to the Southern Ocean, and spent long periods far from land.
However, with the advent of steam engines came freshwater evaporated from
seawater, thus freeing vessels from the vagaries and hazards of water
supplied from shore. Though the water may have been safer, it was not
popular with Challenger's crew as Matkin comments (Rehbock, 1992, p. 32):
A good many of the men complaining of the water which is condensed from
the sea at night & drank(sic) the next day & is scarcely cool. I felt
ill myself the other day but have improved by qualifying the water with a
little Rum or Lime juice.
The Challenger health record is covered in Appendix IV to the narrative (Tizard et al., 1885b)
by Fleet Surgeon George Maclean, R.N. The opening lines convey the fact that
ill health was not regarded as an issue.
The medical history of the Challenger expedition is, fortunately perhaps, of little
interest, considering the rapid variations of climate experienced, the large
proportion of time spent at sea, and the trying nature of the seamen's work.
The health of the ship's company during the commission of nearly 4 years
must be regarded as exceptionally good and will probably compare favourably
with that of any ordinary cruiser on any of the foreign stations.
Scurvy was entirely absent, and this was attributed to the diet, the issuing
of lime juice
Ironically, the British Antarctic expedition
(1875–1876), which Nares led, suffered badly from scurvy. They chose not to
carry lime juice because of its weight and the fuel needed to thaw it
(https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1877/jun/18/navy-report-of-the-arctic-committee; last access: 6 June 2022).
(Smith, 2018) and, according to Maclean, the fact that “the duration of the passages was limited and was capable of being
calculated with strict accuracy, owing to the use of steam”. This statement is at odds with the comment by Buchanan (1919) on page 36:
Her screw propeller could be hoisted up out of the water. This was a great
convenience because all the passage was made under sail. The whole amount of
coal which she could carry was very little more than that required for
manoeuvring the ship at the sounding and dredging stations.
The summary of the losses and illnesses states that there were on average
240 men on board and seven deaths, two due to natural causes, three by violence
(two by drowning and a single fatality to a seaman when a dredging rope
broke), and two by poisoning. A total of 11 were invalided, and 15 were sent to hospital. The only other losses of the ship's company were due to desertions “for which the attractions of the Australian ports visited
were chiefly responsible.”
The diseases encountered were enteric fever (typhoid, 2 cases), yellow fever
(1 case), malaria (28 cases, all comparatively mild), erysipelas (the single
fatal case of this bacteriological skin disease that claimed the life of
Willemoes-Suhm), syphilis (10 cases), and phthisis (pulmonary
tuberculosis, 6 cases). Three men suffered from heart disease and five from bronchitis. Two had pneumonia, and there were many cases of catarrh.
The health of the participants in the Gazelle voyage has been summarized by
Hartmann (1995), but there are other glimpses of medical issues.
Chapter 14 of the Gazelle narrative starts sombrely and continues to recount the
vessel's stay in Brisbane, beginning 26 September 1875.
Unfortunately, the Gazelle's stay in Brisbane was significantly longer than
intended due to an epidemic of illness among the crew.
Under the influence of the hot climate and the long period eating only
ship's rations
Since leaving Mauritius on 15 March, the
vessel had been in significant ports for only 23 out of 195 d, 13 in
Koepang (now Kupang in West Timor) and 10 in Amboina (now Ambon in
Indonesia's Kupang State). Both were then Dutch colonies.
coupled with the
exertions of constantly sailing the ship, chopping down and collecting wood
the ship's company were repeatedly sick with tropical and typhoid fevers,
dysentery and scurvy. Infections occurred, and in the short period from the
beginning of July
She was then surveying north of New Guinea.
to
the end of September, unfortunately we mourned the death of five people.
Later the number of sick people increased to 50 or so, with up to 22 fever
patients. Typhoid gradually assumed an epidemic character leading the Health
Authority in Brisbane to quarantine the ship as soon as it arrived. As a
result, the supply of the ship with coal, water and provisions became even
more cumbersome and time-consuming. Additionally, since coal was not
available in Brisbane, it had to be brought in from a distant pit.
On October 7, the ship went to the quarantine station at Peel Island, where
all those suffering from fever, insofar as they were not yet convalescent,
went to the island's barracks. The whole ship, the hammocks, woollen
blankets, and the sailors' belongings, etc., was repeatedly cleaned, disinfected
and fumigated, and all communication with the infirmary stopped.
Through this and through the administration of a strong diet consisting
exclusively of fresh provisions and strengthening drinks, it was possible to
stop the spread of the epidemic, so that the ship could already be freed
from the quarantine on October 12th. However, in order to be able to
re-embark the sick, among whom unfortunately two deaths occurred, without
danger, the stay had to be extended until October 20th. During this time
regular traffic was maintained between the ship and Brisbane, and the
officers and crew were treated with courtesy by both the German and English
population.
The report of a visit to the ship on 16 October, in a local
newspaper
The Queenslander, Saturday 23 October 1875.
, sheds
further light on the situation. The ship was at anchor near the quarantine
station on Peel Island, and the report makes these comments:
We understand that, owing to the continued illness of some of the seamen
of the Gazelle, now landed on Peel Island, it is probable that the vessel may
remain in our waters for some days to come.
The report from the Peel Island quarantine station, dated 1 January 1876,
mentions Gazelle.
Gazelle (German warship). Maybe around 10 deaths, with graves made up and
headboards with suitable inscriptions placed at each one, unlike many of
the later graves from English ships.
The newspaper report also describes the crew's living quarters as follows:
Near the engines are the furnaces and boilers, which are ranged on either
side of the vessel, with a narrow passage between, and close to these is the
condensing apparatus. This deck is the home of the sailors, the space forward
of the engines being occupied in the centre of the vessel by racks for the
men's “kits”, which were stowed away in canvas bags. On either side were to
be seen the utensils used by the men in taking their meals, and overhead
were the hooks to which their hammocks are swung, and the portable tables,
kept there when not in use.
The paper by Hartmann (1995) gives an overall perspective on the voyage but
sheds light on some of the issues raised above. In particular the reference
to “chopping down and collecting wood” during the period spent surveying New Guinea. This tropical area had
light winds, and the Gazelle had by then exhausted its coal supplies. Thus, the
crew, who were already in poor condition, had to collect timber and bring it
on board to fuel the furnaces for the ship's steam engine and to do this in
high temperatures and humid conditions. The area was mosquito-infested, and,
although at that time these were not recognized as the vectors for malaria,
many of the crew were affected.
Hartmann also sheds light on many aspects of the health of Gazelle's crew. In the
“roaring forties” a sailor fell from the rigging and was killed, and there
were, among the crew, “a large number of so-called mechanical injuries, which today we call bone
fractures, ligament ruptures and dislocations”
Quotations are
from the author's translation of Hartmann's paper.
.
During the period spent around New Guinea, on average, 7 % of the crew were “sick on the bunk”. On some days more
than 50 people were not able to work.
In part this was due to the prevalence of malaria despite the officers and
crew receiving daily prophylactic quinine (3×0.5 g) since before their
first approach to the African coast. Quinine was however unpopular, and an
officer is quoted (Richter, 1910) as saying the following:
Like the crew for a long time, we now have to swallow a lot of quinine, by
which everyone is affected a little, some being affected very badly; I feel
ill from it. The quinine makes the night watches very hard to manage, as one
can barely keep awake in the calm weather.
Hartmann also sheds light on the prevalence of scurvy, a disease that had at
that time been eliminated from the Royal Navy. The diet of the Gazelle's sailors
was poor.
The meals on board consisted mainly of hard bread, the ship's biscuit,
legumes like pearl barley and beans, once a week dried potatoes and salted
meat, the so-called preserved meat, which was also issued once a week. This
provision, which was stowed inside the ship, was called sea provisions.
Fresh meat could only be served seven times during the 6 months of travel or
shortly after visiting a port.
However, their diet was similar to that on Challenger. While around Kerguelen, the diet was
supplemented with Kerguelen cabbage which James Cook 100 years earlier had
recognized as an antiscorbutic. Most significantly, the Imperial German Navy
gave its crews citric acid rather than lemon or lime juice since it was
cheaper and easier to store but contained no vitamin C.
Even in the relatively benign climate of the Pacific, there were hazards. A
diamond back snake was brought on board and bit Dr. Huesker, who “believed he was dying as a result. Thank God the fear was in vain”.
Thus, the two vessels fared very differently with regard to health, due, in
large part, to the extremely long and arduous periods spent by Gazelle around
Kerguelen (over 100 d with average temperature of 7 ∘C) and
around New Guinea (almost 2 months with high humidity and temperature around
30 ∘C
Temperatures estimated from the meteorological
records in Vol. 5 of the Gazelle report.
) and the poor diet and flawed
prophylaxis.
The reports
For both voyages, the process of analysis, interpretation, and reporting was
a long one. For Challenger it lasted from 1885 until 1895. The Gazelle reporting covered only
2 years, but the first was not published until 13 years after the voyage's
completion. Each was hindered by the deaths and illness of key personnel.
Rudolf Willemoes-Suhm died at sea. He had suffered from eruption of boils
for much of Challenger's voyage and died on 13 September 1875, a few days after
the vessel left Hawaii. The cause of death was given as erysipelas, a
bacterial infection, which now would be treated with antibiotics. A memorial
plaque was erected in Itzehoe, Schleswig Holstein, by his Challenger colleagues. It was
later moved to Bad Segeberg (Kortum, 1996), perhaps by von Willemoes-Suhm's
mother, with whom he had corresponded throughout the voyage (von Willemoes-Suhm, 1877).
On his return from the expedition, Wyville Thomson had been elected a fellow
of the Royal Society and received the Society's Royal Medal. Its citation
was “For his successful direction of the scientific investigations carried
on by HMS Challenger”. (Since the medal's inception in 1826, very few awards did not
mention a particular area of science; https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/awards/royal-medal/, last
access: 6 June 2022.)
Further insights into Wyville Thompson's life as a scientist and to his
character are in the obituary notice (Balfour, 1883) read to the Botanical
Society of Edinburgh (p. 278 of https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Transactions_and_Proceedings_of_the_Bota/vpBMAAAAMAAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=false, last access: 6 June 2022) on 13 April 1882. Following his return, it was noted that the voyage “had not brought about increased vigour”, and indeed the
planning of the analysis of the results of the expedition and the
preparation of the reports must have been a considerable burden on him in
addition to the lecturing about the voyage that he was called on to do.
Balfour, a personal friend, records that in June 1879 he suffered a
paralytic attack (perhaps a stroke) and a second one at the beginning of
1882. He died on 10 March of that year aged 52 and is buried at St. Michael's Church, Linlithgow.
Buchanan's recollections of the Challenger expedition are recorded in the chapter “A
Retrospect of Oceanography” in his book Accounts Rendered of Works Done and Things Seen (Buchanan, 1919).
Deacon (1971) proves an insightful summary of the political, personal,
financial, and scientific issues surrounding the disposition of the collected
samples and the process of publication of the Challenger reports. Wyville Thomson had
stipulated before the voyage that the samples should become government
property, and he secured funding for 5 years to cover the cost and expenses
of the staff concerned with storing the samples and writing the reports.
This was opposed by the British Museum, who, eventually, secured the
terrestrial items, while the marine material was retained in Edinburgh where
a Challenger office had been established at 32 Queen Street. This office
would serve as the focus for the publication process, even though the
Challenger scientists eventually returned to their former academic positions. The
Challenger offices saw a steady stream of international scientists involved
in the preparation of the reports. However, the publication process was slow,
and when the initial funding was coming to an end, the government (Treasury)
gave no hope of the grant's renewal. The stress this caused to Wyville
Thomson may well have contributed to his illness and sudden death.
Eventually the Treasury relented and allocated a further 5 years of funding, and
John Murray became director of the Challenger office. The publication
process, the analysis of the results, and samples from Challenger stimulated much
scientific discussion and debate.
At the end of the publication process in 1895, John Murray designed and paid
for the production of a Challenger medal (an online index of the
medals can be found at http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/Chall-Medal/ChallengerMedal.html,
last access: 14 April 2022) to be issued to people who had been involved
in the expedition and in the publication process. A total of 120 medals were struck and
issued between 1895 and 1897. Murray was knighted in 1898. The medals were
awarded to the ship's officers, scientists, and crew, to scientists involved
in the publication, and to politicians and others who had helped make the
expedition possible.
An almost complete set of Challenger reports (National Oceanographic
Library, Southampton) and the Gazelle reports to the same scale. (Walter Zenk, GEOMAR
Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung, Kiel).
The Challenger reports (Fig. 7) finally ran to a total of 50 volumes (online at
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/6513, last
access: 6 June 2022) and were compiled by a large, international group. For
the present-day researcher, navigating through their many pages to find
specific pieces of information presents a considerable challenge.
The publication of the reports of the Gazelle voyage (Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät, 1888, 1889a, b, c, 1890) followed a very different but
no less difficult path. Since Gazelle was a survey vessel, von Schleinitz submitted
regular short reports via mail steamer (particularly relating to surveys of
harbours and coasts), and these were published in Annalen der Hydrographie und Maritmen Meteorologie, the journal of the German Hydrographic Office
and Coastguard. However, the introduction to Vol. 1 of the Gazelle reports shows
that their publication had not been planned.
it was not at the time the intention to summarize and publish the results
of the research in a special report; only later, a few years after the
expedition, when the rich and valuable material collected on the voyage was
assessed, did the need became clear to process it further and to compile it
into a unified work.
There is a clear recognition that this delay seriously hindered the process
of report preparation not least in that the material and information
collected by Gazelle had become scattered. However, in 1880 a memorandum was
submitted to the Reichstag, and funds were allocated and, partly through the
auspices of the Academy of Sciences, a concerted effort to prepare the
reports began.
The preparatory work for the publication was carried out up to the
beginning of 1886 under the personal direction of the former commander of
S.M.S. “Gazelle”, Kontre-Admiral Freiherrn von Schleinitz. When he was taken from
this activity by his appointment as governor of Kaiser Wilhelmsland and the
Bismarck Archipelago
In 1884 the northeast part of New Guinea and
nearby island groups became a German protectorate, Kaiser-Wilhelmsland. Von
Schleinitz was appointed its first governor (Landeshauptmann), returning to
Germany in 1888 (https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/schleinitz-georg-gustav-freiherr-von-4542; last access: 15 April 2022).
, the head of the Admiralty commissioned the
Hydrographic Office with the publication of the work and under the same the
Admiralty Council Captain Lieutenant D. ROTTOK with the publication work.
This task was not an easy one, firstly because of illnesses of individual
employees and also because various work had either not yet started or been
completed, so the collection of the material intended for publication was
made extremely difficult and impossible. In addition, the funds allocated
for the work set rather narrow limits on the scope of the same. This
resulted in a considerable reduction of some already completed parts and a
few significant restrictions on others, and in some cases it was necessary
to exclude individual sections from publication.
Though he had not previously been involved in the Gazelle voyage, Rottok was
clearly a key person in the publication process which resulted in five volumes:
Vol. 1 – The narrative, Vol. 2 – Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 3 – Zoology
and Geology, Vol. 4 – Botany, and Vol. 5 – Meteorology. (See Appendix B for the
full contents list.) It had been intended that the meteorology would be
included in Vol. 2.
To classify the results of meteorological observations in this part, as was originally planned, had to be given up on account of their great
extent. It is intended, however, that the extensive material, which has been
completed under the direction of the director of the Naval Observatory, if
the means at hand allow it, to be subsequently published in a special fifth
part.
This was written in 1889, but part 5 was not published until
1890.
The difficulty in preparing the reports is illustrated by the following
quotation.
It caused great embarrassment when Dr. GOTTSCHE, who had studied the very
extensive and valuable collection of liverworts, suddenly fell ill and could
not finish his work. Eventually, Privat docent DR SCHIFFNER found himself
ready in Prague to finish the work. The painstaking processing of the
Diatomaceae, to which Director JANISCH had devoted himself tirelessly for
years, came to a very regrettable end after a number of interesting and
valuable tables of the Diatomaceae he had identified had come to a halt due
to ongoing illness. It has not been completed, and in order not to postpone
the publication of the work any longer, has unfortunately been omitted from
the publication.
What is perhaps revealing is the heavy emphasis in the Gazelle narrative (Vol. 1)
on anthropology. Approximately half the illustrations and large parts of the
text in that volume are devoted to the subject.
The international nature of the preparation of the Challenger material and the
international connections of the Challenger scientists have already been mentioned, and
this international dimension continued with the reporting which involved
scientists from 10 nations. These contributors are listed in Appendix C.
By contrast, the Gazelle scientists and naval officers involved in writing the
reports were, with the exception of Dr. Studer who was Swiss, all German.
From a modern-day perspective, it also seems remarkable that no French
scientists were involved in the preparation, execution, and reporting of
either of the voyages, but this may be explained by the diminished state of
French science following the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war
(Crosland, 1976; Dolan, 2020).
Postscript and conclusions
So, how were the voyages regarded as they came to their conclusions? The end
of Vol. 2 of the Challenger narrative contains the following assessment.
finally the crew was paid off at Chatham on the 6th of June 1876.
Sir C. Wyville Thomson says: – “Writing now after the commission has come to
a close, I think I am justified in saying that the object of the expedition
had been fully and faithfully carried out. The instructions of the Lord
commissioners of the Admiralty, founded upon the recommendation of a
committee of the Royal Society, were followed so far as circumstances would
permit. We always kept in view that to explore the conditions of the deep
sea was the primary object of a mission, and throughout the voyage we took
every possible opportunity of making a deep-sea observation. We dredged from
time to time in shallow water in the most remote regions, and we have in
this way acquired many undescribed animal forms; and collections of land
animals and plants were likewise made on every available occasion; but I
rather discouraged such work, which in our case could only be done
imperfectly, if it seemed likely to divert our attention from our special
object”.
Joe Matkin (Rehbock, 1992) wrote his last letter from Chatham Dockyard on
11 June where Challenger's crew were paid off and the ship was to be
decommissioned. It was to be the end of his naval service. His letter
provides a view from “below deck”.
several of those who were entitled took their discharges from the Navy
– myself among the number – finding sea life nought but vanity, and
vexation of spirit, especially the latter – my opinion of it coinciding
with that of Dr Samuel Johnson's AD 1776 – with which quotation I will
conclude my long series of letters from HMS Challenger:
A ship is worse than a jail. There is, in a jail, better air, better
company, better convenience of every kind: & a ship has the additional
disadvantage of being in danger. When men come to like a sea-life they are
not fit to live on land.
Men go to sea, before they know the unhappiness of the way of life; &
when they have come to know it, they cannot escape from it, because it is
then too late to choose another profession, as indeed is generally the case
with men when they have once engaged in any particular way of life. Hoping
to see you tomorrow, Believe me, Sincerely your Joe Matkin.
Rehbok comments that Matkin's letters hint at strained relationships between
the crew and the officers and scientists and at the particular challenges
the crew faced due to long periods spent in inhospitable climates.
The conclusion of the Gazelle narrative includes no summary, no assessment of
achievements, nor any comment on the end of the voyage. It merely ends with
the following words:
On the 28th in the morning at 6 1/2 o'clock the Bülk lighthouse came
into sight as the first outpost of the home port. At 8 o'clock we passed it,
and an hour later the lighthouse of Friedrichsort was passed, and we entered
the port of Kiel, where the “Gazelle” tied up at the buoy at 9 3/4 o'clock.
After the inspection of the ship by the Chief of the Admiralty, which took
place on the following days, disarmament proceeded, and on May 12 at 2 p.m.
with the usual ceremony and with a toast to His Majesty the Emperor, the
“Gazelle” was decommissioned.
Perhaps a more insightful, but unofficial, view of the Gazelle voyage is in the
diary of Gazelle's purser quoted by Hartmann (1995).
Gott lob, diese schwere und mühevolle Reise liegt nun hinter uns.
Thank God, this difficult and arduous journey is now behind us
Bruno Buchwald: Die Forschungsreise S.M.S. “Gazelle” 1874 bis 1876. Tagebuchnotizen des Oberbotteliers Rudolph Buchwald. Hamburg, Berlin 1999, S. 11. Held by Marineschule
Mürwik, Germany.
.
On their return, both vessels were nearly 20 years old but were reaching the
end of their useful lives. Challenger had a refit in 1878 to convert her to a training
ship but was not used for that purpose and was put in reserve until 1883.
She then became a hulk on the river Medway and was scrapped in 1921.
Gazelle continued in naval service until 1884, later becoming a barrack ship in
Wilhelmshaven and being broken up in 1906 (Gröner, 1990). All that
remains of the ships is Challenger's figurehead, standing guard at the entrance to the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton.
Legacy
From a 21st century perspective, the data and preserved samples from
these 19th century global voyages provide an important baseline against
which the modern ocean, affected by anthropogenic climate change, may be
compared (e.g. Roemmich et al., 2012; Gould and Cunningham, 2021)
and help us to address such issues as ocean heat storage, acidification and
its effect on marine organisms, and the acceleration of the global
hydrological cycle. After the Challenger material had been studied and
reported, most of the marine material was deposited at the Natural History
Museum in London, where it still resides and is available for study (e.g. Fox
et al., 2020). So, their value has lasted 150 years.
It cannot be denied that the Gazelle voyage became almost invisible in the shadow
of Challenger. The roots of that invisibility can probably be traced to the fact that,
although the quality and scope of the observations were similar, the
undoubted traumatic nature of the Gazelle voyage was perhaps a factor in the
delayed publication of the report. Momentum was lost. An additional factor
may be found in the underlying motivations for the Gazelle voyage, which are hinted
at in the first volume of the report and can be summarized and roughly
ranked as follows:
improving the technical capabilities of the newly formed Imperial German Navy
“showing the flag” for that Navy
transporting the “Transit of Venus” astronomers
anthropological and colonial exploration
adding to our knowledge of the deep oceans and shelf seas.
Perhaps none of these was seen a giving a strong motivation for celebrating
the voyage's achievements. One might even speculate that had it not been for
the transit of Venus and the colonial aspirations, there would have no good
reason for a circumnavigation by Gazelle.
We have already commented on the fact that the Challenger reports were compiled by
an international team (Appendix C), and this may have contributed to
Challenger's visibility. Kortum (1996) also speculates that had von Willemoes-Suhm
survived, he might have played a critical role in building scientific bridges
between Britain and Germany based on the Challenger and Gazelle voyages. This might have
increased the visibility of the Gazelle voyage.
The lasting scientific legacy of both voyages is the information contained
in their published reports and in unpublished logbooks, notes, and diaries,
together with the preserved samples that were collected. The reports are
readily available in print and online, but other material is widely scattered,
and, in the case of Gazelle, little seems to have survived the intervening 150 years. Fortunately, after the Challenger samples had been studied and reported on,
most of the marine material was deposited at the Natural History Museum
(NHM) in London where it still resides and is available for study. Because
the voyages took place early in the industrial age, the recorded
observations made from both ships provide an important baseline against
which the modern ocean, affected by anthropogenic climate change, may be
compared. Such studies have included temperature change (Roemmich et al., 2012; Wenegrat et al., 2022) and salinity change as an indicator of
changes in the global hydrological cycle (Gould and Cunningham, 2021). The
Challenger samples have been used to show the impacts of recent ocean acidification on
planktonic foraminifera (Fox et al., 2020). Samples collected in the 1870s
also provide a rich resource for taxonomists, though it is a cause for
concern that access by researchers to the enormous Challenger collection may be at put
at risk by changing priorities at the NHM (Naggs, 2022).
Anniversaries provide catalysts for celebrations and reassessments. A period of 100 years after Challenger sailed, Eric Linklater's book, The Voyage of the Challenger
(Linklater, 1972), brought the voyage back to the attention of the general
public. A Challenger centenary medal was struck, and, at a celebratory dinner, Madeira
wine that had been carried around the North Atlantic aboard Challenger was drunk
(Rutherford, 1972; Mayson, 2015). We now approach the 150th
anniversaries of these voyages, and, while there will be many retrospective
assessments, a fitting tribute to all those involved in the two expeditions
would be the further use of their measurements and samples to better
understand the oceans' role in earth's climate.
Port calls and survey areas.
Atlantic outbound Challenger GazellePortDatesDaysPortDatesDaysPortsmouth sailed21 Dec 1872Kiel Sailed21 Jun 1874Lisbon3–12 Jan 18739Plymouth28 Jun–3 Jul 18745Gibraltar18–26 Jan 18738Madeira15–16 Jul 18741Madeira2–5 Feb 18733Cape Verde27–30 Jul 18743Tenerife7–10 Feb 18733Monrovia4–7 Aug 1874313–14 Feb 18731St Thomas W.I.16–24 Mar 18738Ascension Is18–19 Aug 18741Bermuda4–21 Apr 187314Congo2–5 Sep 18743Halifax9–19 May 187310Cape Town, South Africa26 Sep–3 Oct 18747Bermuda31 May–13 Jun 187313Azores, Horta1–2 Jul 18731Azores, Ponta Delgada4–9 Jul 18735Madeira16–17 Jul 18731Cape Verde28 Jul–9 Aug 187312St Paul Rocks28–29 Aug 18731Fernando de Noronha1–3 Sep 18732Bahia15–25 Sep 187310Tristan da Cunha15–18 Oct 18733Simonstown, South Africa28 Oct–17 Dec 187350Indian and Southern Ocean PortDatesDaysPortDatesDaysLeave Simonstown17 Dec 1873Leave Cape Town3 Oct 1874Prince Edward/ Marion Is26–27 Dec 18731Crozet18/19 Oct 18741Crozet31 Dec 1873– 3 Jan 18743Kerguelen26 Oct 1874 5 Feb 1875103Kerguelen7 Jan–1 Feb 187415Mauritius26 Feb–15 Mar 187518McDonald Is and Heard Is6–27 Feb 187421Mermaid Strait, Australia27 Apr 18751Melbourne17 Mar–1 Apr 187415
Continued.
Pacific PortDatesDaysPortDatesDaysLeave Melbourne1 Apr 1874Leave Mermaid Strait27 Apr 1875Sydney6 Apr–8 Jun 187463Koepang14–26 May 187513Wellington28 Jun–6 Jul 18748Atapopa27–28 May 18752Kermadec13–17Jul 18744Amboina2–11 Jun 187510Tonga19–22 Jul 18743New Guinea Bismarck Archipelago15 Jun–11 Aug 187556Fiji24 Jul–11 Aug 187418Solomon Is24–29 Aug 18755New Hebrides17–19 Aug 18742Brisbane, Aus26 Sep–20 Oct 187524Raine Is31 Aug 18741Auckland, NZ29 Oct 11 Nov 187513Cape York1–8 Sep 18747Fiji23 Nov 1875Aru Is14–23 Sep 18749Tonga8–20 Dec 187512Ki Is24–26 Sep 187412Samoa24–28 Dec 18754Banda Is29 Sep–2 Oct 18743Magellan Strait1 Feb 1876Amboina4–10 Oct 18746Ternate Moluccas15–17 Oct 18742Samboangan Philippines23–26 Oct 18743Ilo Ilo28–31 Oct 18743Manila4–11 Nov 18747Hong Kong16 Nov 1874– 6 Jan 187551Manila11–15 Jan 18754Zebu18–24 Jan 18756Camiguin Is26 Jan 18751Samboangan29 Jan–5 Feb 18757Humboldt Bay NG22–24 Feb 18752Admiralty Is3–10 Mar 18757Japan11 Apr–16 Jun 187566Sandwich Is, Hawaii27 Jul–19 Aug 187523Society Is, Tahiti18 Sep–3 Oct 187515Juan Fernandez13–15 Nov 18752Valparaiso19 Nov–11 Dec 187522Magellan Strait31 Dec 1875– 20 Jan 187621
Continued.
Atlantic homeward PortDatesDaysPortDatesDaysLeave Magellan Str20 Jan 1876Leave Magellan Str1 Feb 1876Falkland Is23 Jan–Feb 614Punta Arenas6–8 Feb 18762Montevideo16–25 Feb9Montevideo16–19 Feb 18763Ascension Is27 Mar–3 Apr7Azores10–12 Apr 18762Cape Verde17–26 Apr9Plymouth15–20 Apr 18765Vigo2 May1Kiel28 Apr 1876Spithead24 May1Translation of the contents list of Gazelle reportsVolume 1 – Travelogue
PagesChapter IPrehistory, purpose and organization of the expedition1–9Chapter IICommissioning and fitting out of SMS “Gazelle”10–30Chapter IIISailing orders and research instructions30–47Chapter IVFrom Kiel to the Congo48–62Chapter VThe Congo63–72Chapter VIFrom the Congo to Kerguelen72–79Chapter VIIThe Kerguelen Islands80–133Chapter VIIIFrom Kerguelen to Amboina135–159Chapter IXFrom Amboina to the MacCluer Gulf, New Guinea159–185Chapter XFrom New Guinea to New Hannover (Lavongai)185–199Chapter XINew Hannover199–223Chapter XIIMecklenburg223–239Chapter XIIIFrom New Pommern (New Britain) to Brisbane239–258Chapter XIVFrom Brisbane to Samoa258–276Chapter XVThe homeward voyage from Apia via the Strait of Magellan to Kiel277–287Appendix ISummary of anthropological research on the voyage of SMS “Gazelle”288–301Appendix IIThe expedition to the Auckland Islands302–307
Volume 2 – Physics and Chemistry
PagesChapter 1Deep-sea explorations, water temperature measurements, current determinations and observations of the colour and transparency of the seawater carried out during the research trip of SMS “Gazelle”. Edited by Captain Lieutenant a. D. ROTTOK1–46Chapter 2Specific weight and salinity of seawater according to the measurements made on water samples from the S.M.S. “Gazelle” expedition Edited by Professor Dr. G. KARSTEN47–60Chapter 3Chemical analysis of the SMS “Gazelle” collected seawater samples. Edited by Professor Dr. O. JACOBSEN61–68Chapter 4The mineralogical–geological condition of the seabed deposits collected on the research trip of SMS “Gazelle” Edited by Oberbergdirektor Dr. by GUEMBEL in Munich69–116Chapter 5The tide observations at Kerguelen, Betsy Cove. Edited by Professor Dr. BORGEN117–127Chapter 6Wave observations carried out on board S.M.S. “Gazelle”. Edited by Capt. Lieutenant a. D. ROTTOK128–134Chapter 7The Magnetic Observations. SMS “Gazelle”. Edited by Professor Dr. BÖRGEN135–195Chapter 8Geomagnetic and tidal observations on the Auckland Islands (Terror Cove, Port Ross). Processed by Professor Dr. BÖRGEN196–216Chapter 9The Pendulum Observations on the Kerguelen and Auckland Islands. Edited by Professor Dr. C.F.W. PETERS217–265
Volume 3 – Zoology and Geology
Foreword Section IFrom Plymouth to Capetown1–551. Surveys of the coast of Madeira12. The Cape Verdes83. Investigations on the west coast of Africa174. Visit to Liberia335. Visit to Congo366. Visit to Ascension Island437. Visit to the Cape of Good Hope51Section IIKerguelen56–174A. Geology591. From Christmas Harbor to the Observation Peninsula602. The Observation Peninsula673. Mount Crozier804. Low Peninsula805. Royal Sound81General results 84B. Zoology861. Higher vertebrates, terrestrial and freshwater dwellers 87Mammals88Birds92Embryonic development of the bird107
2. Invertebrates 124Land dwelling125Freshwater dwelling130General observations on the terrestrial fauna1313. Marine fauna of Kerguelen 1351. Low tide beach1362.Florida Zone1383. Mud bottom zone142List of marine animals known to date150General considerations on the marine fauna167Section IIIFrom Kerguelen to New Guinea175–2201. St Paul Island1752. Mauritius1783. Dirk Hartog Island, West Australia1824. Mermaid Strait and Dampier Archipelago1875. Dana Island1976. Timor199Geology 200Zoological Observations2097. Amboina216Section IVNew Guinea, the Anchoret Islands and the Bismark Archipelago221–2571. New Guinea221a) Segaar Bay and MacCluer Gulf221Geology221Observed animals223b) Galewo Strait2302. Anchoret Islands2333. Bismark Archipelago235a) New Hannover242b) New Pommerania249c) The domesticated animals of the Bismark Archipelago256Section VFrom Bismark Archipelago to the Magellan Strait258–2921. Bougainville Island and the Solomon Archipelago2582. Moreton Bay and Brisbane2633. Auckland, New Zealand2704. Matuku, Fiji Islands2715. Levuka and Vitu Levu, Fiji Islands2736. Vavau, Tonga Islands2777. Tonga Batu and Hapai, Tonga Islands2788. Upolu, Samoa Islands2799. The Magellan Strait2791. Tuesday Haven 2792. Port Augusto 2803. Punta Arenas 280Tow results from the Magellan Strait and the east coast of Patagonia 281Section VIPelagic fauna293
Volume 4 – Botany
Foreword 1.Summary of the botanical results processed by Prof Dr. A. ENGLER 2.Algae processed by Prof. Dr. E. ASKENASZY. With 12 figures. 3.Mushrooms and lichens A. Mushrooms processed by Baron FELIX v. THÜMENB. Lichens processed by Prof. Dr. A. MÜLLER in Geneva4.Liverworts (Hepaticae) based on the preparatory work carried out by Dr. A.C.M. GOTTSCHE edited by Dr. V. SCHIFFNER. With 8 figures. 5.Mosses processed by Dr. KARL MÜLLER in Halle. 6.Ferns (Filicinae) and clubmoss-like plants (Lycopodinae) processed by Dr. M KUHN with 3 figures. 7.Siphonogams (Phanerogamen) processed by Prof. Dr. A ENGLER with 15 figures.
Volume 5 – Meteorology
Page1.Meteorological observations on board SMS “Gazelle” during the voyage from June 1874 to April 187612.Anemometer measurements on board SMS “Gazelle”1563.Observations of the specific gravity and temperature of the surface waters1894.Meteorological observations on the island of Kerguelen (Betsy Cove)2195.Meteorological observations on Auckland Island (Terror Cove)268–282
International contributors to the Challenger expedition reports
(nationalities are those of the institutions in which the contributors
worked at the time)
The reports are available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/6513 (last access: 19 September 2022).
Contributions are to the zoology reports unless otherwise stated.
AustriaLudwig von GraffBelgiumPaul Pelseneer, Rev Alphonse Francois Renard (sediments)DenmarkRudolph BerghGermanyAlbert Günther (British-born Germany), Ernst Haeckel, Richard Hertwig, Franz Eilhard Schulze, Emil Selenka, Theophil Studer, Otto von Linstow, Albert von Kölliker (born Switzerland)IrelandDaniel John Cunningham, Alfred Cort Haddon, William Johnson SollasItalyFrancesco Castracane degli Antelminelli (botany Diatomaceae)the NetherlandsPaulius Peronius Cato Hoek, Ambrosius Arnold Willem HubrechtNorwayGeorg Ossian SarsRussiaNikolai Nikolaevich PoléjaeffSwedenHjalmar ThéelUSAAlexander Agassiz, W.K. Brooks, Theodore Lyman III
Data availability
No data sets were used in this article.
The supplement related to this article is available online at: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-13-171-2022-supplement.
Competing interests
The author has declared that there are no competing interests.
Disclaimer
Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Acknowledgements
The origins of this paper can be traced back to 2018 with the analysis (with
Stuart Cunningham) of the salinity observations from Challenger and Gazelle. This was the
first time that data from these voyages had been combined. It was then that
I became intrigued by the voyage of the Gazelle and its invisibility.
I wish to thank German friends and colleagues Gerold Siedler, Walter Zenk, and
Klaus-Peter Koltermann and also Gwyn Griffiths and Tony Rice for their
encouraging and constructive comments on an early draft of this paper.
The support of Emma Guest and other staff of the UK National Oceanographic
Library is also gratefully noted. Neil Fraser (Scottish Association for
Marine Science) kindly prepared Fig. 1.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Kevin Hamilton and reviewed by Breck Owens and Tony Rice.
ReferencesA.M.F.: Obituary: Captain Thomas Henry Tizard, C.B., F.R.S., R.N., Geogr.
J., 63, 460–462, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1781248
(last access: 6 June 2022), 1924.Anonymous: The Great Circumnavigating Exploring Expedition, Nature, 6,
529–530, 10.1038/006529a0, 1872.Anonymous: The Scientific Orders of the “Challenger”, Nature, 7, 191–193, 10.1038/007191a0, 1873.
Anonymous: Scientific Worthies, Nature, 14, 85–87, 1876.Agassiz, G. R.: Sir John Murray, P. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 52, 853–859, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20025726?seq=1 (last access: 6 June 2022),
1917.
Aitken, F. and Foulc, J.-N.: From Deep Sea to Laboratory 1: The First
Explorations of the Deep Sea by HMS Challenger (1872–1876), James Wiley,
ISBN 978-1-78630-374-5, 2019.
Balfour, J. H.: Obituary Notice of Sir C Wyville Thomson, Trans. & Proc.
Bot. Soc., 16, 278–281, 1883.
Bell, K.: British Policy Towards the Construction of the Suez Canal,
1859–65, Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 15, 121–143, 1965.Bourne, G. C.: From Moseley's Notes by a Naturalist, 2nd Edn., Putnam, New York, https://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/sma/index.php/primary-documents/primary-documents-index/391-moseley-memoir.html (last access: 6 June 2022), 1892.Brunton, E. V.: The Challenger Expedition, 1872–1876: A Visual Index, 2nd
Edn., The Natural History Museum, London, 242 pp., https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/164698#page/2/mode/1up (last
access: 6 June 2022), ISBN 0 565 0 91913, 1994.Buchanan, J. Y.: Accounts rendered of Works Done and things Seen, Cambridge
University Press, 435 pp., https://ia800209.us.archive.org/7/items/accountsrendered00buchuoft/accountsrendered00buchuoft.pdf
(last access: 6 June 2022), 1919.Carpenter, W. B.: On the Gibraltar Current, the Gulf Stream, and the General
Oceanic Circulation, Proc. R. Geogr. Soc., 15, 54–91, 10.2307/1799637, 1870.
Cartwright, D. E.: Tides, a Scientific History, Cambridge University Press,
292 pp., ISBN 0-521-62145-3, 1999.
Crosland, M.: Science and the Franco-Prussian War, Soc. Stud.
Sci., 6, 185–214, 1976.
Darwin, C.: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, J. Murray, London,
1859.Davoust, E.: Le voyage de l'expédition allemande pour observer le
passage de Vénus du 8 Décembre 1874 aux îles Kerguelen, et son
séjour en ces lieux, Pulsar, 733, 8–12, 1999 (in French, an English translation is
available at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2011/2011.03402.pdf, last access: 6 June
2022)Dawson, L. S.: Memoirs of Hydrography, including brief biographies of the
principal officers who have served in HM Naval Surveying Service between the
years 1750 and 1885. Part 2. 1830–1885, Henry W. Keay, Eastbourne, 209 pp., https://archive.org/details/memoirshydrogra00dawsgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(last access: 6 June 2022), 1885.
Deacon, M. B.: Scientists and the Sea 1650–1900 a study of marine science,
Academic Press, London, 445 pp., ISBN 0-12-207850-0, 1971.Dolan, J. R.: The Origins of Oceanography in France: The Scientific
Expeditions of Travailleur and Talisman (1880–1883), Oceanography, 33,
126–133, 10.5670/oceanog.2020.202, 2020.
Duerbeck, H. W.: The German transit of Venus expeditions of 1874 and 1882:
organization, methods, stations, results, J. Astron. Hist. Herit., 7, 8–17,
2004.
Durmont-d'Urville, J. S. C.: Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'Océanie, sur
les corvettes “l'Astrolabe” et “la Zélée”, Paris, Gide éditeur,
tome 8, 136–181, 1842–1846.Fox, L., Stukins, S., Hill, T., and Miller, C. G.: Quantifying the Effect of
Anthropogenic Climate Change on Calcifying Plankton, Sci. Rep.-UK, 10, 1620,
10.1038/s41598-020-58501-w, 2020.Gould, W. J. and Cunningham, S. A.: Global-scale patterns of observed sea surface
salinity intensified since the 1870s, Commun. Earth Environ., 2, 76,
10.1038/s43247-021-00161-3, 2021.
Gröner, E.: German Warships: 1815–1945, Vol. I: Major Surface
Vessels, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, ISBN 0-87021-790-9, 1990.Güssfeldt, P., Falkenstein, J. A. F., Pechuel-Loesche, E., and Baldamus, E. W.:
Die Loango-Expedition ausgesandt von der Deutschen Gesellschaft zur
Erforschung Aequatorial-Africas, 1873–1876, https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/dieloangoexpedi00gssf (last
access: 6 June 2022), 1888.
Harley, C. K.: The Shift from Sailing Ships to
Steamships, 1850–1890: A Study in Technological Change and its Diffusion [first pub. 1971],
in: Essays on a Mature Economy: Papers and
Proceedings of the MSSB Conference on the New Economic History of Britain
1840–1930, edited by: McCloskey, D., 3rd Edn., Routledge, New York, 215–234, ISBN 978-1-136-58671-2, 2010.
Hartmann, V.: Medizinische Besonderheiten während der Forschungsreise der
Gedeckten Korvette S. M. S. Gazelle um die Welt in den Jahren
1874–1876, Würzburger medizinhistorische Mitteilungen, Band 13,
371–390, 1995.
Hollyday, F. B. M.: Bismarck's Rival: A Political Biography of General and
Admiral Albrecht von Stosch. Normanby Press, 305 pp., ISBN 9781787203839,
2017.
Horsburgh, J.: Catalogue of the photographic Negatives taken during the
Challenger Expedition 1872–1876, HMSO Edinburgh, 12 pp., 1885.Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät: Die Forschungsreise,
S.M.S. “Gazelle” in den Jahren 1874 bis 1876: unter Kommando
des Kapitän See Freiherrn von Schleinitz, Teil 2. Physik und
Chemie, E. S. Mittler und Sohn, 10.5962/bhl.title.984, 1888.
Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät: Die Forschungsreise,
S.M.S. “Gazelle” in den Jahren 1874 bis 1876: unter Kommando
des Kapitän See Freiherrn von Schleinitz, Teil 1. Der Reisebericht,
E. S. Mittler und Sohn, ISBN 9783959400152, 1889a.Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät: Die Forschungsreise,
S.M.S. “Gazelle” in den Jahren 1874 bis 1876: unter Kommando
des Kapitän See Freiherrn von Schleinitz, Teil 3. Zoologie und
Geologie, E. S. Mittler und Sohn, 10.5962/bhl.title.984, 1889b.Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät: Die Forschungsreise,
S.M.S. “Gazelle” in den Jahren 1874 bis 1876: unter Kommando
des Kapitän See Freiherrn von Schleinitz, Teil 4. Botanik, E. S.
Mittler und Sohn, 10.5962/bhl.title.984, 1889c.Hydrographisches Amt der Admiraltät: Die Forschungsreise,
S.M.S. “Gazelle” in den Jahren 1874 bis 1876: unter Kommando
des Kapitän See Freiherrn von Schleinitz, Teil 5. Meteorologie,
E. S. Mittler und Sohn, 10.5962/bhl.title.984, 1890.Jones, E. L.: Making the Ocean Visible: Science and Mobility on the
Challenger Expedition, 1872–1895, PhD thesis, University College, London,
320 pp., https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10087545/13/Erika Jones_Making the Ocean Visible_2019_edited.pdf (last access: 6 June 2022), 2019.Kortum, G.: The German Challenger of Neptune, The History of Oceanography
Newsletter, No. 8, https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=hist_ocean (last access: 19 September 2022), 1996.
Linklater, E.: The voyage of the Challenger, J. Murray, 288 pp., ISBN 0719526264, 1972.
Lyell, C.: Principles of Geology, various editions and
paginations, John Murray, London, 1830–1868.Maury, M. F.: The Physical Geography of the Sea, Sampson Low, Son and Co,
London, 273 pp. and plates, 10.5962/bhl.title.102148, 1855.Moseley, H. N.: Notes by a Naturalist. An account of observations made during
the voyage of HMS Challenger, round the world in the years 1872–1876, John
Murray, London, 540 pp., https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/14281 (last access: 6 June
2022), 1892.
Mayson, R.: Madeira: The islands and their wines, Infinite Ideas Limited,
Oxford, UK, 282 pp., ISBN 978-1-909652-91-0, 2015.Naggs, F.: The Tragedy of the Natural History Museum, Megataxa, 7, 85–112, https://www.mapress.com/mt/article/view/megataxa.7.1.2, last access: 19 September 2022.Navy Department: Report of circumnavigation committee of Royal Society on
request of British Admiralty for suggestions relative to scientific work of
proposed expedition of Her Britannic Majesty's ship “Challenger” round the
world. Bureau of Navigation of the Navy Department, Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C., 15 pp., https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/expeditions-and-discoveries/catalog/38-990067600400203941
(last access: 26 August 2022), 1872.Ohff, H.-J.: Empires of enterprise: German and English commercial
interests in East New Guinea 1884 to 1914, PhD Thesis, University of
Adelaide, 449 pp. and Annexes, https://hdl.handle.net/2440/48479 (last access: 19 September 2022), 2008.
Ohff, H.-J.: Disastrous Ventures: German and British Enterprises in East New
Guinea up to 1914, Plenum Publishing, ISBN 0994304536,
2015.
Overlack, P.: German New Guinea: a Diplomatic, Economic and Political
Survey, J. R. Hist. Soc. Qld., 9, 128–152, 1973.
Rehbock, P. H. (Ed.): At Sea with the Scientifics – The Challenger letters
of Joseph Matkin, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 415 pp., ISBN
9780824814243, 1992.
Rennell, J.: The Currents of the Atlantic Ocean and those which Prevail
between the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, JG and F Rivington, London, 359 pp.
and charts, 1832.
Rice, A. L.: British Oceanographic Vessels 1800–1950, The Ray Society Series
No. 157, The Ray Society, London, 193 pp., ISBN 0-903874-19-9, 1986.
Rice, A. L.: The Challenger Expedition/the end of an era or a new beginning?
Chapter 1 in Understanding the Oceans, edited by: Deacon, M., Rice, T., and
Summerhayes, C., UCL Press, London, 300 pp., ISBN 1-85728-706-1, 2001.
Richardson, P. L.: Benjamin Franklin and Timothy Folger's First Printed Chart
of the Gulf Stream, Science, 207, 643–645, 1980.
Richter, J. W. O.: Die Forschungsreise Sr. Maj. Korvette “Gazelle” Nach
amtlichen Berichten, sowie Briefen, Tagebuchblattern und Aufsatzen der
Teilnehmer, Altenburg, Deutsche Seebücherei, XXIV, 1910.Ritchie, S.: A brief History of 19th Century Deep Sea Sounding, Int.
Hydrogr. Rev. (New Series), 1, 6–14, https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/download/20479/23642/
(last access: 6 June 2022), 2000.Roemmich, D., Gould, W. J., and Gilson, J.: 135 years of global ocean
warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme, Nat.
Clim. Change, 2, 425–428, 10.1038/nclimate1461,
2012.
Rutherford, W. H. (Ed.): Second International Congress on the History of
Oceanography. Challenger Expedition Centenary, Edinburgh, September 12 to
20, 1972, Proceedings 1. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. B, Biological Sciences, 72,
Royal Society of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, viii, 462 pp., 1972.Scherzer, K.: Reise Der Österreichischen Fregatte Novara Um Die Erde, in
Den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859, Wien, C. Gerold's Sohn, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/9173 (last
access: 6 June 2022), 1864.Sennett, R. and Oram, H. J.: The Marine Steam Engine. Longmans Green and Co.,
London, 1899
(extracts online at https://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-Sennett-MarineSteamEngine.htm#1,
last access: 6 June 2022).
Siemens, C. W.: On a Deep Sea Electrical Thermometer, P. R. Soc. London,
34, 89–95, 1882.Smith, E. J.: “Cleanse or Die”: British Naval Hygiene in the Age of Steam,
1840–1900, Med Hist., 62, 177–198, 10.1017/mdh.2018.3, 2018.Smith, E. J.: Raising Boys for the Navy: Health, Welfare, and the British Sea
Services, 1870–1905, J. Hist. Med. All. Sci., 76, 53–77, 10.1093/jhmas/jraa054, 2021.Sperberg, U.: Eduard Heis, an early pioneer in meteor research, Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 12, 163–170, 10.5194/hgss-12-163-2021, 2021.Spry, W. J. J.: The Cruise of Her Majesty's Ship “Challenger”. Voyages over
many seas, scenes in many lands, Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, &
Rivington, London, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/112294 (last access 6 June
2022), 1876.Theberge, A. E.: George Belknap and the Thomson Sounding Machine, Hydro.
International Magazine, https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/george-belknap-and-the-thomson-sounding-machine (last access: 6 June 2022), 2014.Thurston, R. H.: Obituary notice, Charles William Siemens, P. R. Soc.
London, 37, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspl.1884.0002 (last
access: 6 June 2022), 1884.
Tizard, T. H.: Contribution to the Meteorology of Japan, Meteorological
Committee, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 24 pp., 1876.Tizard, T. H., Moseley, H. N., Buchanan, J. Y., and Murray, J.: Narrative of the
cruise of HMS Challenger with a general account of the scientific results of
the expedition. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of HMS
Challenger During the Years 1873–76 Under the Command of Captain George S.
Nares, R.N., F.R.S. and the Late Captain Frank Tourle Thomson, Prepared under the superintendence of the late Sir C Wyville Thomson, Knt., F.R.S. &c, Vol. 1, Neill and
Company, Edinburgh, 1–1172, 1885a.
Tizard, T. H., Moseley, H. N., Buchanan, J. Y., and Murray, J.: Report of the
Scientific Results of the voyage of HMS Challenger During the Years 1873–76
Under the Command of Captain George S. Nares, R.N., F.R.S. and the Late
Captain Frank Tourle Thomson, Prepared under the superintendence of the late Sir C Wyville Thomson, Knt., F.R.S. &c., Vol. 1, Part 1, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1110 pp., http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/1885-Narrative/htm/doc.html
(last access: 6 June 2022), 1885b.
Tucker, M. J.: A wave-recorder for use in ships, Nature, 170, 657–659, 1952.
von Tirpitz, A.: My Memoirs. Dodd, Mead and Co, New York, Not so Noble
Books, Kindle Edition, ASIN: B00DH2E9LE, 1919.von Willemoes-Suhm, R.: Challenger-Briefe, 1872–1875. Mit einem Vorwort von
Professor Kupffer, der Photographie des Verstorbenen und einer Darstellung
seines Grab-Monumentes, Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 180 pp., https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/1777
(last access: 6 June 2022),
1877.Wenegrat, J. O., Bonanno, J., Rack, U., and Gebbie, G.: A century of observed
temperature change in the Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098217,
10.1029/2022GL098217, 2022.
Wild, J. J.: At anchor: a narrative of experiences afloat and ashore during
the voyage of HMS Challenger, from 1872 to 1876, M. Ward and Co., London,
Belfast, 198 pp., 1878.
Winfield, R.: British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863: design,
construction, careers and fates Seaforth Publishing, 414 pp., ISBN
978-1848321694, 2014.
Wyville Thomson, C.: The Depths of the Sea, MacMillan and Co, London, 523 pp.,
1873.Wyville Thomson, C.: The voyage of the “Challenger”: the Atlantic: a preliminary
account of the general results of the exploring voyage of HMS “Challenger” during the
year 1873 and the early part of the year 1876, Harper and Bros, New York, 2
Vols., 391 and 340 pp., 1878.
Zimmermann, A.: Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany,
University of Chicago Press, 364 pp., ISBN 0-226-98341-2, 2001.