Posted: Jan 18, 2006 11:45 am EST
(MountEverest.net) In a 5 part ExWeb series published in 2004, researchers Pete Poston and Jochen Hemmleb (author of several books on the subject) offered some interesting insight into the quest for the true fate of Mallory and Irvine.

The pair introduced the mystery, presented their own opinions and criticism of the EverestNews Theory - a theory that lacks documentation and photographs, involves some serious climbing stunts, and relies on unidentified climbers in unrevealed locations.

In November 2005, Pete Poston submitted yet another criticism of EverestNews M&I stories. Soon afterwards, Australian Phil Summers asked ExplorersWeb to submit his own research notes, which supported Pete’s theories (check out Nov 18th and Nov 28th, '05 stories on MountEverest.net).

Now it is Jochen Hemmleb’s turn for an update, providing his point of view on the Second Step issue. “Have fun reading it,” he recommends. Here goes the article:

Mallory and Irvine – the ‘Second Step’ Issue: A different look at the lessons from 1933 and 1924

By Jochen Hemmleb

"Following the articles on Mount Everest’s notorious Second Step by Pete Poston and Phil Summers, I would like to add a few qualifying remarks to the latter. These remarks are based on an experience made on Everest in 1999 – and they may be interesting in shedding some light on how the Second Step/Kangshung Face theory came to be.

While I support Pete Poston’s rejection of a Kangshung Face bypass of the Second Step based on technical terms, I find myself disagreeing with Phil Summers' assertion that “the route taken by modern day climbers up the ‘second step’ was noted and preferred in 1933.”

At the beginning of the 1933 expedition, members were in fact open to both possibilities of climbing the Second Step. After viewing the mountain from Chö-Dzong (sic) on the approach, expedition leader Hugh Ruttledge wrote (1):

1933: Not a clear option to face the Second Step

“One thing was obvious: the second step was a formidable obstacle. Every mountaineer knows that you cannot judge rock accurately until you actually, as the late Captain Farrar used to say, ‘rub your nose on it.’ Nevertheless, the angle of the second step was certainly very severe; the step rose more than a hundred feet above the north-east arête, overhanging slightly towards the top. Careful examination revealed signs of a fault in the rock about halfway up, which might permit a turning movement on the right. A steep snow slope seemed to lead up to an equivalent height on the other side. If this snow were in good condition, it might provide a means of avoiding the rock altogether and of reaching the arête again beyond, and to the west of, the second step.”

There is a clear distinction between the two routes, the rightward turning of the step by means of a ‘fault’ on one hand (i.e. the modern route) and the steep snow slope or crest at the left side of the step on the other (i.e. the prow). The prow is definitely counted as a possibility.

Normally I would have dismissed such an impression, given what we now know about the prow from close-up photographs – that is until I recently looked again at an image I had taken of the Second Step in 1999.

A new look at old pictures

This was a telephoto shot taken from Advanced Base Camp. When I looked at this after reading the articles about the Second Step/Kangshung Face theory, I was immediately struck by how high up the snow crest at the prow had reached that year – almost three-quarters of the way. It looks almost as if it's bypassing the top of the prow, but at the same time is also very steep.

At higher magnification one can see two red dots on the step’s face – Dave Hahn and Conrad Anker –, which add a scale to the surrounding features. Given how small the snow patch is on which they are standing, it seems inconceivable that this was the same snow crest or slope where Noel Odell last saw Mallory and Irvine.

Frank Smythe reported a similar impression in 1933 (2):

“There seemed just a possibility that the second step could be climbed directly from the crest of the north-east ridge, since the telescope revealed the suggestion of a snow slope on the far side. Was it possible that the step was a fraud and that the crest of the ridge was continuous at this point? The available evidence made this seem very unlikely.”

Smythe doesn’t explain what he meant by “available evidence”, but most likely refers to the testimony of Norton and Somervell, who, at that time, were the only living climbers to have seen the the Second Step's surroundings from a close range.

First summit pairs’ attempts

Wager and Wyn-Harris, the first pair to summit in 1933, were the next ones to get a close look at the Second Step. They had turned the First Step at its base, below the modern route – a lasting regret since thismeant they would lose their only chance to truly judge the two approaches to the Second Step, including the prow. “It would be easier to traverse along the top of the Yellow Band. From where Wager and Wyn-Harris were, they could not see that the cliffs directly below the second step were inaccessible as far as a direct assault was concerned; it was obvious.” (3) From their perch below the cliffs barring access to the true base of the Second Step, they could not trace the “oblique gully” of the modern route. Besides, the snow crest of the prow no longer appeared a possibility.

(Contrary to Phil Summers opinion, Wager and Wyn-Harris did not try to access the oblique gully of the modern route from below, but attempted another gully – in Ruttledge’s words “a mere shallow scoop” (4) – farther to the right.

Smythe makes the distinction, albeit a confusing one, by writing, “The telescope had revealed a chimney which Wyn had noted as a possible line, but they were unable to find it. The sole possibility was an oblique gully, which appeared to cut through the steep belt of rock.” (5) The chimney here is an obvious reference to the crack/dihedral of the modern route).

No easy way up anyhow

What also becomes apparent from Wager and Wyn-Harris’ experience is that even if there was a route up the prow of the Second Step (by Smythe’s “snow slope on the far side”), the approach to the prow poses an equally serious problem.

Wager and Wyn-Harris kept following the top of the Yellow Band because the ridge above looked too difficult, and the spectacular video footage taken by Mark Whetu in 1994 (6) just confirms how narrow and exposed the crest is between the First Step and the Mushroom Rock. It is obviously the same from the Mushroom Rock to the prow.

Rather than providing a unanimous opinion about the right way up the Second Step, the surprisingly varied observations by the 1933 expedition raise some intriguing questions:

Did Wager and Wyn-Harris fail to see a route up the prow of the Second Step due to their viewing angle, or did such a route simply not exist? Could such a route form under certain conditions? And, more importantly to the Mallory & Irvine mystery: Did such conditions exist in 1924?

Much more snow back then

There is, at least to my knowledge, only one image that shows the Second Step around the time of Mallory and Irvine’s summit attempt: a photograph of the upper Northeast Ridge taken four days earlier by Howard Somervell (7).

At extreme magnification, the appearance of the Second Step gives the game away: In comparison with recent images of the step (see Pete Poston’s article), there was considerably more snow on the Kangshung side in 1924, most notably a bulbous cornice at the top. At the same time, the snow crest on the prow extends to only about halfway up. The almost vertical mixed ground to the left of the snow crest, well depicted in Franck Pitula’s images, is also faintly discernible.

Conclusion: Even if an alternative route up the prow of the Second Step could form under certain conditions, it did not do so in 1924.

References:
(1) Ruttledge, H.: Everest 1933. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1934; p. 87
(2) Smythe, F.S.: Camp Six. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1937; p. 98
(3) Ruttledge, op. cit.; p. 138
(4) Ibid; p. 139
(5) Smythe, op. cit.; p. 231
(6) Mount Everest, the Summit of Dreams. Bellingham: Peak Media, 1995
(7) Reprinted in Gillman, P.: Everest-The Best Writing and Pictures from Seventy Years of Human Endeavour. London: Little, Brown & Co., 1993; p. 36

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Pete Poston for fruitful discussion, constructive criticism, and advice.

Jochen Hemmleb

Bolzano (Italy)"

 EMAIL   PRINT   SHARE   TEXT