November io, 1904J 



NA TURE 



45 



When Captain Wood visited Kaulia in 1903 he was un- 

 able to discover the place from which Schlagintweit had 

 made his drawing ; he selected another spot, and made a 

 careful drawing to scale of the snowy and nearer ranges. 

 In Fig. 3 is given a copy of his drawing of Gaurisankar. 



On the advice of the Prime Minister of Nepal, Captain 

 Wood recorded on his drawing against the lower peak of 

 the Gaurisankar double the name Gauri, and against its 

 loftier companion the name Sankar. 



If we compare Wood's drawing with Schlagintweit's, we 

 see that the nearer range B appears higher in Schlagint- 

 weit's picture than in Wood's. This same peculiarity is 

 visible throughout the panoramas of the two observers ; the 

 near ranges appear in Schlagintweit's drawing higher 

 always with regard to the distant ranges than they do in 

 Wood's. The inference is that Schlagintweit drew his 

 panorama from a considerably lower point than Wood did ; 

 this may account for the fact that Schlagintweit shows no 

 signs of Everest. 



Again, in Schlagintweit's drawing the near range K 

 cuts off laterally more of the snowy range than it does in 

 Wood's, and obscures the shoulder of Gaurisankar just at 

 the point where Everest should have been visible. 



In Wood's drawing Mount Everest appears as a low 

 peak at the spot where General Walker calculated that it 

 would appear. 



The omission of Everest from Schlagintweit's panorama 

 led General Walker to believe that it was not visible from 



Schlagintweit's station at Kaulia. Whether it was visible 

 or not was, I am sure, in General Walker's opinion not a 

 question of moment. 



(3) Now that Gaurisankar and Everest have been proved 

 to be different peaks, a suggestion has been put forward ' 

 that they belong after all to the same " group " of peaks, 

 and that " according to Alpine usage and precedent there 

 is nothing to prevent the name Gaurisankar being applied 

 to the loftiest peak of the group." 



It is clear from this passage that the author is desirous 

 of getting rid of the name of Everest, but it is not clear 

 how his object is to be attained, whether by transferring 

 the name Gaurisankar from the one peak to the other, 

 or by giving the name Gaurisankar to both peaks. 

 To displace the native name from the mountain which the 

 natives know, and to attach it to a remote peak which 

 they do not know, would be a course that would not com- 

 mend itself to anyone interested in the preservation of local 

 geographical names. To give the same name to both peaks 

 would be to introduce a needless confusion. 



Gaurisankar and Mount Everest, we are here told, belong 

 to the same group; but what is a group? Controversialists 

 give to the term different meanings to suit their own re- 

 quirements. It is true that in some instances the same 

 name has been given to different Himalayan peaks; 

 Kangchenjunga I and Kangchenjunga II are the official 

 designations of the two pinnacles which cap the lofty mass 

 of Kangchenjunga ; the eight peaks of a cluster in Kumaon 

 1 Geographical Journal^ March, 1904, p. 362. 



NO. 1828, VOL. 71] 



are named Badrinath I, Badrinath II, &c. ; but these peaks 

 are slight prominences crowning the snow-clad pyramid of 

 Badrinath, like turrets on a castle. Everest and Gauri- 

 sankar are separated by a wide interval and a deep valley, 

 and are not spires of a single pile. 



The extent to which we are justified in giving the same 

 name to different peaks is, however, not altogether a 

 question of intervening distance and depth ; geographical 

 significance has also to be considered. The peaks of the 

 Badrinath cluster have a common, but no individual, 

 significance ; they are notable only as the several pinnacles 

 of the sacred pile of Badrinath, and can therefore be 

 classified without disadvantage under one general apel- 

 lation. But the case of Gaurisankar and Everest is 

 different : the former is remarkable in Nepal for the pre- 

 eminence of its grandeur ; the latter, screened from the 

 gaze of man, is known only as the highest point of the 

 earth. Would it not, then, be a mistake to include under 

 one name two mountains the claims of which to celebrity 

 are so different? 



Before we blindly follow Alpine precedents in the settle- 

 ment of Himalayan problems, we must consider well 

 whether the conditions are identical. " It is no exagger- 

 ation to say," writes a great Himalayan authority, " that 

 along the entire range of the Himalayas valleys are to be 

 found among the higher mountains, into which the whole 

 .Mps might be cast, without producing any result that 

 would be discernible at a distance of ten or fifteen miles." ' 



The Discovery of a Supposed Tibetan Name. — Colonel 

 Waddell's book,^ "Among the Himalayas," gives a good 

 description of the Nepalese mountains with many interest- 

 ing profiles- the author's investigations have enabled him 

 to authenticate a Tibetan name for a high peak which he 

 believes to be Mount Everest. This name is Jamokangkar, 

 sometimes spelt Chamokankar. 



Now let us suppose for one moment that it will be proved 

 by future evidence — not at present forthcoming — that the 

 mountain called Jamokangkar by Tibetans is identical with 

 our Mount Everest. What then? Will it be incumbent 

 upon us to abandon the name of Everest and to adopt that 

 of Jamokangkar? I think not. 



When the Gaurisankar controversy opened, the name of 

 Everest was an interloper upon the map of Asia; but its 

 trespass has long since been condoned. Time and usage 

 have secured for it a right not less sacred than the right 

 of origin ; for what, after all, is the right of origin but 

 that conferred by time and usage? To displace now this 

 name from its lofty position in geography would seem to 

 many of us an outrage. 



It will, I think, be lamentable if former advocates of the 

 name Gaurisankar, seeing that their cause is doomed, con- 

 tinue the struggle under this new flag of Jamokangkar. 

 Already, to our regret, has Mr. Freshfield, a life-long 

 defender of the claims of Gaurisankar, declared in favour 

 of the Tibetan name.' 



The old dispute has been settled ; the names Gaurisankar 

 and Everest have been proved to belong to different peaks ; 

 and it is to be hoped that Continental geographers, who 

 have hitherto attached the name of Gaurisankar to the 

 famous peak that we call Everest, will, in the interests 

 of scientific harmony, now accept the name that has always 

 been accepted by India. But before we can look for Con- 

 tinental acquiescence we must endeavour to show agree- 

 ment at home. Few Continental geographers see the 

 official reports of the Indian Government ; the majority 

 draw their conclusions from articles in our geographical 

 Press. 



In March, 1903, Mr. Freshfield, the late secretary of 

 the Royal Geographical Society, wrote in the Geographical 

 Journal as follows : — " The reason, for which the surveyors 

 argued so strenuously forty-five years ago, that the 29,002 

 feet peak cannot be the Gaurisankar of Nepal was, of 

 course, that their chief's proceeding in giving the moun- 

 tain an English name was excused, or justified, at the 

 time by the assertion that it had no local or native name." 



The surveyors whose motives Mr. Freshfield has 

 impugned were formed into a committee forty-five years 



1 See the article on Himalaya by General Sir R. Strachey, R.E., in 

 " Encyclop. Brit.," 9th edition. 

 ■- Published 1899. 

 ■* Geos/taphical Journal, March, 1904, p. 363. 



