CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesHistorical and Archaeological StudiesMaritime and Coastal Archaeology

The “Boat Place” Burial: New Skeletal Evidence from the 1845 Franklin Expedition

Open access
Stenton, Douglas R., Keenleyside, Anne, Park, Robert W.·2015·ARCTIC
DOI 10.14430/arctic4454
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In 2013, a burial feature was excavated at NgLj-3, a Franklin expedition archaeological site on the Erebus Bay coast of King William Island. The feature contained 72 human bones representing a minimum of three individuals. The composition of the assemblage closely matches the description of skeletal remains of members of the Franklin expedition buried by Frederick Schwatka in 1879. Analysis suggests that the remains include those of the two men discovered in a ship’s boat in 1859 by the McClintock search expedition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14430/arctic4454

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At NgLj-3, 79 human fragments belonging to a minimum of three young males were identified; the remains were generally well preserved with minimum breakage and 11 vertebrae were present.

    “Stenton et al. (2015) identified 79 human fragments belonging to a minimum of three young males (MNI = 3).The skeletal remains were generally well preserved with minimum breakage and the vertebrae were fairly well represented (total of 11 vertebrae present; Stenton et al., 2015: p. 35).”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Stenton et al. (2015)

    The Site Description and Inventory report 79 human bones and bone fragments at NgLj-3, and the Discussion identifies remains of three males, but says only one was a young adult. The Site Description says the buried bones appeared to be in good condition; the Inventory nevertheless records damage to several bones and lists 12 pre-sacral vertebrae in the burial, plus a vertebra found on the surface—not 11 vertebrae. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • At NgLj-3, only four bones have evidence of cut marks and there is no evidence of breakage of bones to extract marrow.

    “Only four bones (a sacral vertebra, a right scapula and two tibiae) have evidence of cut marks and there is no evidence of breakage of the bones to extract bone marrow (Table 1).”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Stenton et al. (2015)

    The Cut Marks section reports cut marks on exactly four NgLj-3 bones: a sacral vertebra, a right scapula fragment, and two tibiae. The Inventory attributes damage to several long-bone ends to animal scavenging, but the paper does not explicitly assess whether bones were broken to extract marrow; the Pathological and Non-Pathological Features section also notes a rib break of uncertain timing. Thus, the marrow-extraction part is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The NgLj2 and Erebus Bay assemblages may reflect a more advanced stage of survival cannibalism.

    “The NgLj2 and Erebus Bay assemblages may reflect a more advanced stage of survival cannibalism, and the Booth Point site and the Charity Site in Ontario, an advanced or end stage of survival cannibalism (Mays & Beattie, 2016;Spence & Jackson, 2014;Stenton et al., 2015).”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Stenton et al., 2015

    The “Source of the Assemblage” section (page unavailable) reports cut marks at NgLj-2 and other Erebus Bay sites consistent with survival cannibalism. It does not characterize those assemblages as reflecting a more advanced stage of cannibalism. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Booth Point site and the Charity Site in Ontario may reflect an advanced or end stage of survival cannibalism.

    “The NgLj2 and Erebus Bay assemblages may reflect a more advanced stage of survival cannibalism, and the Booth Point site and the Charity Site in Ontario, an advanced or end stage of survival cannibalism (Mays & Beattie, 2016;Spence & Jackson, 2014;Stenton et al., 2015).”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Stenton et al., 2015

    The Source of the Assemblage section discusses cut marks and possible survival cannibalism at the Franklin expedition’s NgLj-3 and NgLj-2 sites. Searches for “Booth Point,” “Charity Site Ontario,” and an advanced or end stage of survival cannibalism found no passage addressing the claim about those two sites. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Barnes, E. 1994. Developmental defects of the axial skeleton in paleopathology. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
  2. ---. 1881. Admiral Sir Leopold McClintock's letter. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society 1880(4):243 -245.
  3. Schwatka, F. 1881. Address of Lieut. Schwatka, U. S. Army. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society 1880(4):246 -258.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stenton, D. R., Keenleyside, A., & Park, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Government of Nunavut (CA)
  • Trent University (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Stenton, Douglas R.
ORCID
Venue
ARCTIC
Publisher
The Arctic Institute of North America
Published
2015-02-23
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
32
ISSN
  • 0004-0843 (ISSN-L)
  • 1923-1245
DOI
10.14430/arctic4454
OpenAlex
W2033024176
Cited by
17
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
17.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ARCTIC (publishedVersion)
Funders
Government of Nunavut
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical and Archaeological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Maritime and Coastal Archaeology
Keywords
Franklin expedition, skeletal remains, King William Island, Franklin search expeditions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review