Chris Gilbert wrote:
> Boo wrote
>
>> It's pointless change.
>
> By the same token so was the change to Everest.
>
>> That's not a reason for me to do so however.
>
> Would respect for cultural precendence be a valid reason ?
>
> No, its OK. I'm not fishing for an answer there. We're unlikely
> to explore any avenues that have not already been explored
> earlier in the thread and I already sense this particular path has
> been trod already. Suffice, its a mindset I can't fathom. I'm not
> sure whether the celebrate the difference, however 
>
> Chris
>
>
When Everest was first surveyed in 1849, it was as part of the Great
Trigonometrical Survey of India. Nepal was closed to foreigners, and
the mountains were surveyed from great distance (Everest from six
different stations at an average of 111 miles) and it was some time
before a good estimate of the height could be calculated; only then was
it discovered that this distant peak was higher than Kangchenjunga
(note, local name used for this summit) and was the highest so far
discovered. Nobody knew the local name for Peak XV, which is how it
appeared on the survey, Nepal was closed and Tibet further away and an
independent country - neither under British rule. The Surveyor-General
suggested naming it after his predecessor, George Everest, as no local
name was known.
So Everest was first mapped as Mount Everest because the local name
could not be found. Expeditions to reconnoitre and climb it began
almost at once, and the name became iconic.
The name Everest has remained in currency where other "imposed" names
have not - Mount Godwin-Austen soon reverted to K2, but not Chogori,
Lambha Pahar or Dapsang. Of course, it was only climbed by Italians
<big grin>
Info from George Band's "Everest".
