Fridtjof Nansen, one of the greatest arctic explorers of all time, achieved immeasurable success in the field of arctic exploration, based on his employment of indigenous arctic peoples' methods of travel and survival in cold regions. The Royal Navy, in a burst of arctic exploration between the years 1818-18?6, achieved great success too in mapping over one-half of the North American and Canadian Arctic, where the main effort of exploration was centred, and in the discovery of three Northwest Passages. But this was at considerable effort and a very high monetary cost. J. Rae, J. Richardson, and R. King in the 184Os and '50s, and more recently V. Stefansson (1939) and H.N. Wallace (1980), have put forward the view that the navy did not give full consideration to indigenous "light" methods and the concept of "living off the land", or even to a European application of this approach. In addition, they believed the navy had a "British is best" attitude to arctic exploration. Wallace (1980) views naval arctic exploration in terms of a "heavy, deep-sea" approach which was out of harmony with the arctic environment.

Another school of thought, typified in the writings of L.H. Neatby (1958 and 1970), extols the techniques used by the navy.

This thesis assesses the "heavy, large-scale, deep-sea"approach of the navy while revealing that far more respect was given to, and much initiative was shown regarding the employment of, proven indigenous techniques; and that the navy showed more awareness of, and adaptability to, the environment than they are sometimes given credit for.

The thesis will focus on the seaborne exploration of the North American and Canadian Arctic as opposed to the overland approach, as the main thrust of naval exploration was via the sea, based from ships in search of a Northwest Passage. (As the techniques employed show a clear development over time, a chronological approach is adopted).