I chose Robert Peary’s expedition to the North Pole from 1908 to 1909 because it is both an important and controversial moment in exploration history. Peary claimed he was the first person to reach the North Pole, but people have questioned his claim for years. I thought it was interesting because it shows that exploration was not always clear or certain, and that even big achievements could be debated. It made me curious about how people at the time figured out where they were without the technology we have today.

For my project, I used the Arctic Regions map from the David Rumsey collection, and it really shows both the strengths and limitations of geographic knowledge at the time. The map includes major landmasses and general Arctic geography, but it is not perfectly accurate, especially compared to modern maps. When I plotted Peary’s route using modern coordinates, it became clear how much estimation was involved in navigation back then. It also showed how difficult it would have been to travel across areas that were not fully mapped or understood.

Using georeferencing and accurate coordinates makes these voyages a lot easier to understand because you can clearly see where everything happened. It turns something that might feel confusing into something visual and straightforward. At the same time, this kind of digital map can hide how difficult and uncertain the journey really was. The map looks clean and exact, but in reality, Peary and his team were dealing with dangerous conditions, shifting ice, and unclear navigation. It can also make disputed claims seem more definite than they actually are.

I also noticed that using the All Maps editor was kind of difficult, especially because the historical map was not perfectly accurate. Since the Arctic Regions map was created with limited knowledge, it did not line up exactly with modern geography, which made georeferencing harder. Some points did not match perfectly, and I had to adjust things as best as I could. Even though it was frustrating, it actually helped me understand how much mapping has improved over time and how uncertain these regions once were.

I think digital tools like GIS have definitely changed how we understand and visualize human interaction with the world. They make it easier to see routes and relationships between places in a way that was not possible before. This connects to the idea of “tracks on the ocean” from Sara Caputo, but there is a difference. GIS makes everything look fixed and certain, while real exploration was often uncertain and messy. So while these tools are really helpful, they can also make the past seem more clear and settled than it actually was.