44 



NA TURE 



[November io, 1904 



weit have formed the basis of controversy, and will continue 

 to be remembered until controversy ceases. 



In 18S3 Colonel Tanner visited Falut, and found that 

 Everest was barely visible from there, being almost shut 

 out from view, and entirely surpassed in appearance by 

 Makalu (height 27,790 feet), a lower though nearer peak ; 

 it was Makalu that Schlagintweit mistook for Everest, and 

 it was Makalu that he drew as Everest, both in his 

 panorama of the snows from Falut, and in his picture, 

 which is preserved at the India Office. 



In 1903 Captain Wood visited Kaulia by order of Lord 

 Curzon ; he found that Gaurisankar and Everest were 



O 



O Makalu 



^Qaurlaankar 



^Kaulia 

 O Katwand-i 



Schlagintweit's tour in Nepal 



Heights in feel. 



Everest 



Makalu 



Gaurisankar 



Falut 



Kaulia 



. 29 



Distance from Mount Everest 

 in miles. 



27,790 to Makalu 

 23,440 to Gaurisankar . 

 ii.Sis to Falut ... 

 7,051 I to Kaulia 

 Fic. I. 



different peaks thirty-six miles apart, and that Everest, far 

 from being conspicuous, was almost obscured from view by 

 intervening ranges. Captain Wood also discovered that an 

 imposing peak of the snowy range, a peak long known in 

 the records of the survey a's Peak XX, height 23,440 feet, 

 was the famous Gaurisankar of the Nepalese. 



.\ comparison of the drawings of Schlagintweit and 

 Wood tells us that the same peak was shown by the 

 Xepalese to both observers as Gaurisankar. Schlagintweit 

 was therefore right in giving the name of Gaurisankar to 

 the great peak that is so conspicuous from Kaulia and 

 Katmandu, but he has been proved to have been wrong in 

 three particulars, namely, (i) in his identification of Everest 

 from Kaulia, (2) in his identification of Everest from Falut, 

 (3) in assuming that he had observed the same peak from 

 Kaulia as he had done from Falut. 



It is interesting to consider the magnitudes of the 

 mistakes he made : — from Kaulia the direction of Gauri- 

 sankar differs from the true direction of Everest by two 

 'jegrees ; from Falut the direction of Makalu differs from 

 the true direction of Everest by forty-two minutes. 



From Kaulia the elevation of Gaurisankar differs from 

 the true elevation of Everest by twenty-four minutes ; from 

 Falut the elevation of Makalu differs from the true elevation 

 of Everest by fifteen minutes. 



The two peaks Gaurisankar and Makalu, which 

 Schlagintweit thought were the same, are forty-seven miles 

 apart. 



The supposed identity of Everest and Gaurisankar has 

 rested only on Schlagintweit's evidence. It is true that 

 successive British Residents at Katmandu have continued 

 Io regard Gaurisankar as Everest,' but their ideas have been 

 based on the Schlagintweit tradition. It is also true that 

 in a recent number of the Geographical Journal- the photo- 

 graphs of Dr. Boeck have been preferred as evidence to the 

 observations of the Indian Survey ; unfortunately Dr. 

 Boeck made a mistake of thirty-two degrees in direction in 

 his attempt at identifying Mount Everest,' and this initial 

 slip led him to twist the whole area of Nepal round through 

 a third of a right-angle. 



.Side Issues of the Controversy. — It is difficult to avoid 

 the thought that this long controversy has of recent years 

 been degenerating into a barren dispute over side issues. 



fi) It has, for instance, been stated in the Geographical 



1 " In the Himalayas," by Waddell, lEgg, p. 346. 



*- Geograf>htcal Joifrnat^ March, 1903. 



^ Colonel Gore's preface to Captain Wood's Report, 1904. 



NO. 1828, VOL. 71] 



Journal that " the object of Captain Wood's visit to Nepal 

 was to ascertain whether the mountain known as Mount 

 Everest is visible from the heights in the neighbourhood 

 of Katmandu, and forms part of the range l-cnown in 

 Central Nepal as Gaurisankar."' But this statement is 

 incorrect. The object of Captain Wood's visit to Nepal was 

 to ascertain whether the peak known to the Nepalese as 

 Gaurisankar was identical or not with the peak known 

 to lis as Mount Everest, and this main issue ought to be 

 kept in view. It is also inaccurate to speak of a range in 

 Central Nepal known as Gaurisankar ; there is no range 

 so known ; Gaurisankar is a double peak. 



(2) A side issue on which some argument has been ex- 

 pended is whether Mount Everest is visible from Kaulia 

 or not. This point may be of interest to individuals, but 

 it has no scientific importance ; and I am surprised to see 

 it asserted, as though some geographical issue were 

 involved, that the Survey oflicers have generally held the 

 view that Everest was not visible from Kaulia." 



In a paper published in i8S6, the late General Walker, 

 R.E., gave some calculations of azimuth and elevation to 

 show that the two peaks of Gaurisankar and Everest could 

 not be identical ; after proving his point in a convincing 

 way, he added the following general remark : — " Obviously 

 therefore Gaurisankar, the easternmost point of Schlagint- 

 weit's panorama of the snowy range, cannot have been 

 Everest, and the great pinnacle must have lain hidden away 

 from his view by intervening mountain masses. "' 



If we wish to discover whether a place A is visible from 

 a place B, we have but two courses open to us : we can 

 make calculations from contoured maps of the country, or 

 we can send an observer to B to ascertain if A can be 

 seen. If there are no maps, the second course alone is 

 open. 



Mount Everest is 109 miles from Kaulia ; the intervening 

 space is taken up by mountains and valleys, ridges and 

 hollows, spurs and basins ; this complicated area is un- 

 surveyed, and questions of visibility are not mathematically 

 arguable. 



How came it, then, that an expert like General Walker 

 expressed the opinion that Everest was not visible from 

 Kaulia? General Walker was, of course, merely judging 

 from Hermann Schlagintweit's recorded evidence. At 

 Kaulia Schlagintweit made a careful drawing to scale of 

 the snowy and nearer ranges ; in Fig. 2 is given a copy 

 of his drawing of Gaurisankar. 



Schlagintweit wrote against the peak Gaurisankar on 

 his drawing the words "Gaurisankar or Everest." but 



General Walker showed by calculations that if Everest had 

 been really visible it would have been seen by Schlagint- 

 weit as a low peak near the spot marked H. As 

 Schlagintweit showed no low peak at this spot. General 

 Walker concluded that it had been obscured from his view 

 by one or another of the many unsurveyed intervening 

 ranges. 



^ Geographical Journal, January, 1904, p. S9. 



2 Geographical Journal, March, 1903, and January-, 1904. 



3 Proceedings R.G.S., 

 Schlagintweit described Everest : 



will be seei 

 ; the easternmost point of hi- p.-ino 



that 



