Comparison Between Putnam's and Peary's Accounts and Conclusions
Overall, despite featuring the same expedition, the accounts of George Putnam and Robert Peary differ greatly in their focus and writing style. Much of this disparity can be explained when considering the differences in the intended audiences of the diary, official published account, and scientific report.
Putnam's diary was composed for himself. While it may have been expected for Peary or the lead professors to possibly view it, Putnam had no sense of writing for the larger public. Due to this, his entries were often repetitive and somewhat difficult to understand without the larger context of the expedition. However, this also meant that details are likely more reliable in that they were not manipulated or cherry-picked to influence or impact a broader audience. In this way, Putnam's diary can be used to add detail and a more realistic edge to the larger understanding of the events and purpose of the journey. For example, details of the difficulty in collecting measurements due to inclement weather or frustration over the "Hope" being trapped in ice for extended periods of time would likely have not been featured in a more glamorized version of the expedition.
In Robert Peary's official account, such setbacks were not mentioned with the same tone. Peary instead crafted a dramatic retelling of only the climactic events of his expedition, for example the attempted extraction of the Cape York Meteorite. Unlike Putnam's diary, where there was only a brief mention of the actual journey to and from the meteorite site, Peary focused entirely on what is framed as a Herculean struggle to unearth his otherworldly prize. The difference between these accounts of the same expedition evidently lay in the intended audience. Peary's account was published for the public's viewing, which can help contextualize and explain his notably dramatic retelling of the expedition. Positioned as the leader Peary would have had motivation to paint himself as a hero figure both for his own fame and recognition and also to increase his likelihood of receiving funding for future expeditions. Whereas, Putnam was brought to serve a simpler purpose of taking magnetic measurements and observations during the expedition and would therefore not have been operating with the same motivations of garnering financial support, as Peary.
Even though the 1896 expedition was unsuccessful in extracting any meteorite (they returned with success in 1897) Peary does not frame it as much of a loss. Instead, he uses it to emphasize how much effort and hard-work is behind his accomplishments, thus framing it in a positive light for the public. This also ties in with his descriptions of the Inuit he worked with on this mission, framing them as willing participants in his expedition, when in reality Peary was likely reframing his coercion and mistreatmnt of the Inuit people. Largely, Peary's account was more widely received but Putnam's honest writing provides a more realistic story that is representative of the expedition as a whole.
Putnam's scientific report's publicity is in some ways a combination of that of the two other sources. It is reaching a much more narrow audience, limited to those in academia interested in the topic of magnetism near the north pole, but this is still more public than the diary. Thus, while it does feature more detail on the journey to and from the arctic than Peary's account, it is condensed and, as expected for a scientific report, more objective than the casual nature of the diary. Thus, the scientific report is still read and received as an unembelished, accurate depiction of the journey, unlike Peary's account, but features less detail and daily accounts than Putnam's diary.
With each source not created equal in reliability and audience, it is also important to note that none of the three sources provide a full description of the expedition. While both of Putnam's sources are reliable and detailed, they only detail the scientific group's goals, not at all mentioning the meteorite. The inverse is true for Peary's account. Thus, it is crucial that these sources are viewed together to give a more holistic view of the expedition. As seen in Peary and Putnam's works, different viewpoints, audiences, and purposes can yield incredibly different accounts of the same event. This case study emphasizes the importance of a diverse range of sources when working on historical archive projects in order to grapple with varying (and sometimes conflicting) perspectives. Doing so allows us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences, purposes, and importance tied to a moment in history.