For centuries explorers like Carsten Borchgrevink, Ernest Shackleton, Fridtjof Nansen and Robert Peary were attempting to sail as close as they possibly could to the North and South Poles. The collective and logical plan was to save themselves the labour of sledging north or south over the unforgiving ice any more than was needed. But sooner or later their ships were stymied by the pack, shelf or continental ice and they took to dog sledging, man-hauling or anything else that could advance their progress.  I believe that this juncture then - between ship and sledge - should form the basis of the debate about unsupported polar expeditions.

Take the recent expedition to the North Pole by Jon Muir and myself as an example. The 2002 Arctic season determined that we could only begin our journey 50km off-shore. Huge tracts of open water lay off Cape Arktichevsky, the northern tip of the Siberian island group of Severnaya Zemlya - there was no option but to begin, together with the two other teams, at the edge of the solid pack ice.

Rewind a century. What if Peary had been confronted by our problem during his attempts from Greenland and Ellesmere Island? Without question, to sail north to the edge of the pack ice and begin the march from there. This scenario is highly unlikely from the Canadian side, but had he utilised the Russian side he most certainly would have. Conversely, had the season determined a start south of Cape Arktichevsky, from there it would have been. In fact, on his 1899 attempt, Peary's ship, Windward, was able to proceed no further north than Cape D'Urville in the Cane Basin. He then had to march over 300km to reach his preferred start point, Fort Conger on Ellesmere Island.

When Nansen made his pioneering attempt on the North Pole he beset his ship, Fram, into the ice and drifted north to 86N. Progress was painstakingly slow and after three years he decided to take to the ice with a small sled. He and his companion continued north but didn't get very far, so, with the ship gone, they backtracked south, eventually reaching Franz Josef Land, where they wintered before being rescued.

In all polar pioneering cases, opportunity and best endeavour dictated the starting point. Furthest north or south by ship, then onward.

Back to modern day. It becomes clear that using land as the basis for an acceptable starting point for unsupported polar expeditions is valid but not steadfast. Land as a start point is arbitrary as not all historical attempts began from land. It's a modern concept that began with people like Ralph Plaisted, the first modern expedition to the North Pole (probably the first surface expedition), Ranulph Fiennes and Transglobe and Robert Swan's In the Footsteps of Scott to the South Pole. Land as a start point can also be seen as a copout. Imagine the consequences had Shackleton set out on his Transantarctic crossing from an Endurance beset in the ice of the Weddell Sea, hundreds of kilometres from the Ronne Ice Shelf, and another 500 to continental land. Would we be using his expedition as an unsupported template? Why don't we use Peary's 1899 attempt as a paradigm for the Arctic? OK, his final expedition is probably faked but all his attempts till then are substantiated.

Personally, I believe that a 'best endeavour' start, and finish, should form the basis of an acceptable unsupported journey. Our expedition is not listed in www.adventurestats.com (Explorers Web) as an unsupported North Pole expedition. So be it. But let's also then look at the numerous listed South Pole expeditions that have started from Patriot Hills or Hercules Inlet, hundreds of km's closer to the pole than the 'chosen' Berkner Island. Are they listed because the instigators of the website began their journey from Hercules Inlet? They would lose their place in history if they used the stricter self-imposed North Pole expeditions template.

Jon and I refer to our expedition as unsupported because we began at a 'best endeavour' point, as close to land as possible under the seasonal circumstances, and we completed the expedition without further support. As a further example, two young Norwegians, Petter Nyquist and Kjetil Holen, were also on the Arctic this year. Their appealing expedition, named The Final Distance, began from 86N to complete Nansen's 1895 North Pole attempt. Theirs too was an unsupported journey and I would not be concerned if they promoted it as such, so long as they also promoted their start point, as we have done to media, in articles and on our website. What is required in a site like adventurestats.com is a recognition of best endeavour expeditions, with an additional column that highlights the nuances of expeditions that fall beyond the constraints of conventional thinking.

Another debate rages over the use of mechanical advantage. So we all agree that dogs and engines constitute support, but extending this thought to include kites is ludicrous. Wind has been around long before life on this planet and to regard it and the use of traction kites as a mechanical advantage is to negate the use of nature herself. I, and all other lovers of wind-assisted travel, see it as an application of savvy rather than a default to aid. Do we observe the use of stoves, skis, sleds and multi-tools with the same level of scrutiny? And what of the ice drift afforded to North Pole travellers from time to time? If this natural advantage was to be regarded as a form of assistance, then I'm afraid there have been no unsupported North Pole expeditions. Incidentally, we took kites but never used them. Had wind and surface conditions conspired to render those babies useful, we most certainly would have launched them, without fear of forfeiting our unsupported status.

Finally, when I, and my friends with whom I choose to travel, read about or hear of expeditions to the polar regions, or any expeditions for that matter, we rate them not by their status of support, but by the tenor of the team, the boldness, integrity and uniqueness of the journey and the flagrant disregard for convention.

Appended with the following on August 14, 2004.

During the Arctic season this year, Frenchwoman Dominick Arduin died shortly after beginning her unsupported attempt to ski from from Cape Arktichevsky to the North Pole. She attempted to cross a large stretch of open water off the Cape, and, with a storm passing through shortly after, ran into serious difficulties and was never seen again. I can't help but think that this tragedy permeated as a result of the pressure placed on adventurers to have their expeditions regarded as unsupported. Again, Explorers Web and others are placing undue pressure on the adventuring community by categorizing expeditions on their achievements. Of course decisions must be made in the face of what we sense, not what others will think, but we should not be pressured into feeling that our efforts fall short of somebody else's parameters.