Posted: Nov 28, 2005 12:05 pm EST
(MountEverest.net) Two weeks back, Pete Poston submitted yet another criticism of Everestnews M&I stories. Pete and Jochen are not alone doubting the website's theory. Friday, Aussie researcher Phil Summers emailed ExWeb, asking to submit his notes, based on a glance back over the historical record. So here goes, from our Aussie mate Phil Summers - a detailed study of an important part of Everest history:

Mallory and Irvine - the 'Second Step' Issue - Lessons from 1933 and 1924
by Phil Summers

Abstract:

Noted Everest researcher Pete Poston, recently expounded a cogent photo analysis and discourse on widely perceived problems with the theories espoused by the website 'Everestnews.com' on the climb accessability by Mallory and Irvine of Everest's 'second step' vertical prow and Kangshung face alternatives(1)(2).

An analysis of the historical record ex post facto in 1933, suggests that the collective terrain knowledge of the 'second step' was clear enough to determine that the 'modern' route up the step's ramp, snowpatch and crux pitch that rents the North-east face of the step was known and a viable route compared to the more dubious frontal vertical prow approach, thus resulting in 'Everestnews.com' overall premise extenuation .

Discussion:

An analysis of the insights expressed by the 1933 Everest expedition (3) on the planned route of Mallory and Irvine, plus the morphology of the 'second step' reveal firstly that the 1933 expedition consulted widely with surviving members of the 1924 attempt quite extensively.Indeed expedition leader Hugh Ruttledge wrote "Moreover, the surviving members of that expedition have spared no pains or trouble to place their experience at the disposal of their successors..."(4).

Turning to the planned route of Mallory and Irvine from their highest bivouac at Camp 6 to the summit, Ruttledge informs us "Mallory always intended to climb straight up to the great north-east arete' and follow it to the final pyramid,trusting to be able to climb the two nearly vertical steps which guard the way"(5).

Stating clearly after consultation with the 1924 members that Mallory's plan entailed vectoring to the North-east ridge and then following it to the summit via the two steps en route, but with enough confidence that the defences of the steps (including the second) could be surmounted satisfactorily.

In terms of knowledge of the terrain from afar that would inspire such confidence in Mallory and Irvine of the 'second step's' accessability, Ruttledge describes the efforts of Wyn-Harris and Wager on May 30, 1933 and their failure to detect the gully which rent the north-east face;"From a distance the second step had seemed to be split by an oblique gully cutting down through it in a north-easterly direction. At close quarters even this could not be traced(6)".

This indicates that from afar the 1933 members were fully aware of the 'modern' route up the 'second step' which seemed to confer good accessability to the higher mountain, unfortunately Wyn-Harris and Wager passed under the step's lower wall and at close range were unable to see beyond above to the snowpatch and crux pitch due to an excessively acute angle that blocked their line of sigh,. eg like trying to look onto a roof of a house whilst standing close to the base of a wall below.

It can be reasonably projected, that if the 1933 expedition were aware of the 'modern' route up the 'second step' from afar and tried to unsuccessfully access it, then it seems reasonable that as the 1924 and 1933 members widely consulted beforehand (Noel Odell was a late omission in 1933-replaced by Wager- and transport officer Shebbeare was a member of both expeditions), then the 1924 expedition were aware of the 'second steps' oblique gully as both were looking at the same terrain from afar.

Thus it seems a reasonable supposition that Mallory and Irvine were aware of the nature of the 'second steps' morphology too and planned accordingly their ascent route to encompass the North-East Arete' and its two steps which they banked on being able to climb via the 'modern' route up the oblique gully in the North-east side of the 'second step' as Ruttledge notes in his clear descriptions!.

Finally we can cast further doubt on the assertions by 'Everestnews.com' on the vertical prow route as in 1933 Shipton and Smythe were deceived by an optical illusion on the 'second step' of what they thought were Wyn-Harris and Wager, which they ultimately realised were rocks!.

Ruttledge sums up the view of the 'second step' in terms of direct access up the vertical prow, "....it is quite 100 feet high, vertical for the most part and even overhangs in its upper portion. It is probably unclimbable and certainly desperately difficult"(7). This description casts real doubt on the accessability of the 'second step' in terms of a frontal assault on the vertical prow as the 1933 members are quite clear on its structure and difficulty via this means, yet are more open to the oblique gully which Wyn-Harris and Wager tried to access from below!.

Conclusions:

Poston has cogently argued against the direct vertical prow assault of the 'second step' and the related Kangshung face in technical terms. Analysis of the impressions and conclusions of the 1933 expedition (with consultations from the 1924 experience) mitigate against the arguments espoused by 'Everestnews.com' on these routes accessability and instead confirm Postons case that the 'modern' route up the 'second step' to the right of the prow is viabale and proven.

Certainly in 1933 they were fully aware of this route, and were dubious of the vertical prow approach with its difficulty and overhang. By extension, with active consultation between the 1924 and 1933 members, it seems reasonable that Mallory and Irvine looking at the same terrain from afar were also aware of the respective routes pro's and con's and the mere fact that they banked on vectoring up to the North-east Arete' and then following it to the final pyramid via the two steps en route, indicates a confidence that they were aware of the difficulties of the route yet were knowledgeable enough to still continue perhaps with the knowledge that the 'second step' was split by a gully on its north east side that was accessable to the slopes beyond.

Certainly the 1933 expedition is clear on what they could see and achieve on the 'second step', and by extension Mallory and Irvine too, as their planned route indicated. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that there is no real evidence that the direct vertical prow route up the 'second step' was contemplated based on the impressions in the historical record and indeed the preponderance of evidence indicates that the route taken by modern climbers up the 'second step' was noted and preferred in 1933 and 1924 if that North-east Arete' route was pursued. It would appear that 'Everestnews.com' is 'barking up the wrong rockface'.

Acknowledgements:

The author wishes to thank prominent Everest researcher Pete Poston for his timely and exacting disquisition on this issue. Thanks also to; Bill Lougheed, Chris Peacock, Thomas Rost and Gareth Thomas for ongoing learned discussion, advice and expertise in this area.

Appreciation also to the friendly staff at the Hobart, State Library of Tasmania for their efficiency and co-operation in preparation of this paper. Special thanks and deep appreciation finally to the members of the 1933 and 1924 British expeditions to Everest. Their sterling efforts of exploration and courage along with their incisive observations and analysis speak clearly to us across the years - the author is indebted to their indefatigable efforts.

References:
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=1147 (1)
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=1148 (1)http://www.everestnews2004.com/malloryandirvine2004/stories2004/ourtheory.htm (2)http://www.everestnews.com/mallory2005/mallory2005update06032005.htm (2) http://www.everestnews.com/mallory2005/mallory2005update10122005.htm (2)

"Everest 1933", Hugh Ruttledge, Hodder and Stoughton, London 4th edition May 1945 (3)

(4) PP 26 "Everest 1933, Ruttledge. (5) PP 24 "Everest 1933, Ruttledge. (6) PP 152 "Everest 1933, Ruttledge. (7) PP 167 "Everest 1933, Ruttledge.

Phil Summers

Australia 2005

 EMAIL   PRINT   SHARE   TEXT