Expedition Waste
- Posted on:
-
Author:
admin
A tiresome topic … In the aftermath of the 1999 Mallory discovery, some authors have distributed (and continue to do so) claims that could nowadays be termed “alternative facts”. For example, Reinhold Messner’s tome, Mount Everest – Expedition zum Endpunkt von Reinhold Messner (BLV, 2003, p.216), contains the following “gem”:
„When the expedition leader and ‚historian’ later say that Anker had found Mallory according to their instructions, and had free-climbed the Second Step, […] they purposely falsify the facts.”
A subsequent edition contained the added “niceness” that I (the aforementioned ‘historian’) were “possessed by prejudice” – something I can forgive the good guy, because he is essentially right: I love prejudice, love to question it and love to disprove it. Although the prejudice that “great mountaineer” equals “great character” has been disproven by Messner himself – convincingly, and many times over.
But back to the facts (no “alternative” here):
The preparation of the search
In preparation of the search for Mallory and Irvine before the 1999 expedition, I had prepared two documents, which were circulated among the expedition members: an excerpt from my research
papers (a.k.a. “The Second Step Series”), containing a photo analysis aimed at narrowing down the search area; and a “Research Manual”, a five-page, simplified summary of this analysis to be taken to the upper mountain.
According to the photo analysis, the camp from where Wang Hongbao had found the „english dead“ was located at an altitude of c. 26,970 ft. ( 65 ft.). From the camp’s deduced position I reconstructed a horizontal traverse (parallel to the altitude contours) all the way to its intersection with the fall line from the location of Irvine’s ice-axe. This became the deduced center of the search area, assuming that the body and ice-axe were directly related.
Before 1999, the place of the Chinese camp from 1975 and the ice-axe location from 1933 were
the only two reference points on which to base a search. It is true that the deduced center of the search area is different from the spot where Mallory was later found. It is higher and further to the west (right when viewed from Base Camp), the horizontal distance between the two points is 110 yards.
I was aware of the controversy surrounding the meaning of the ice-axe discovery and therefore qualified my deductions regarding the search area by saying:
“So even if there is no connection between the ice-axe and the body, the body should still be within 10 minutes walking distance (or a 250 m radius) from the 1975 Camp VI. In my opinion, the body is likely to lie SW of this camp, i.e. in line with the ice-axe location.”
Mallory’s remains were found 200 metres away and to the south-west of the deduced position of the 1975 Camp VI.
The search on May 1, 1999, as viewed from Base Camp
Due to logistical reasons, the search team did not directly ascend to the search area from Camp V, but first passed through the planned site of our Camp VI. This was to be located halfway between the North Ridge and the 1975 Chinese Camp VI. The deduced position of the Chinese camp was 170 yards farther to the west and c. 50 ft. higher.
The search team crossed over to the search area in an ascending traverse from our Camp VI. This traverse took them above the deduced position of the Chinese camp. (This is confirmed by film footage showing the search team walking over yellow-brown scree of Yellow Band affinity, while the Chinese camp was still within the underlying brown schists).
Why didn’t I intervene at this point? The answer is simple: There is something that can be called “trust in the competence of others”. I knew the strength of our search team and trusted their decisions up there (see also Ghosts, p. 117).
The search team reached the ill-defined rib bordering the basin below the ice-axe location to the east (left) at an altitude of c. 27,035-27,070 ft. At this point, Jake Norton found a blue oxygen cylinder from the 1975 Chinese expedition. This was an indication that the search team was on the right way.
Ankers claim (American Alpine Journal, 42, 2000, p. 376) I had taken this for the location of the Chinese camp and therefore wrongly deduced its position, is plainly false – the oxygen bottle was indication for the vicinity of the camp, and I wrote so in Ghosts of Everest (p. 116).
The irony of these events became clear two years later, when we found and conclusively identified the 1975 Chinese Camp VI. It was located below the deduced position, at 26,805 ft, some 160 yards away from Mallory and only slightly (50 ft.) higher. Had the search team of 1999 taken a lower traverse, they would first have found the camp and within a short time later Mallory. If this had prevented some of the ensuing self-glorification and slander is a moot point. Fact is, the 1999 search team neither reached the deduced nor the true position of the Chinese camp. Their route took them above both spots.
The different areas searched by the individual team members were as follows: Dave Hahn stayed near the ill-defined rib and descended towards the true position of the Chinese camp, although he didn’t reach it. Richards and Norton investigated the broad chute to the right of the rib. Politz ascended to the upper rim of the basin, into the rocks of the Yellow Band. Anker descended to the lower rim, where it breaks off in a series of cliffs.
Even to a watcher at Base Camp it was clear that these cliffs formed the natural boundary of the search area. No radio call came from Base Camp that day, ordering the team to stick to any imaginary circles in a snow and scree slope – as implied by Anker and Roberts in their book’s graphics.
At 11.20 am, Conrad Anker came across a first body and radioed his discovery to Base Camp (times were noted during the telescope watch) – the „greeter“ (because one of his arms stuck out grotesquely), probably the Russian Sergei Arsentiev, who had disappeared the previous year. Ten minutes later, at 11.30 am, Tap Richards found another body in red-white-blue down clothing and with strap-on crampons. Based on the clothing’s colour and the equipment I preliminarily identified the body as that of Wu Zongyue, a Chinese who had fallen to his death in 1975.
Afterwards, the following radio conversation took place, which was later also published on the Internet (Clark, L. “The Day Mallory was found”, NOVA Online, www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest, January 17, 2000):
Anker: “I’m going to investigate this direct fall line. Over”
Richards: “Conrad and everyone. I’m at the fall line here as well. I’ve come across two other people. Looks like they definitely have fallen. The fall line in relation to that ice-axe is the key. Over.”
Hemmleb: “I could suggest that what we are looking for is lower down, but as I can’t see you right now in the telescope, I’m not that sure, so keep on searching. Over.” (emphasis added)
Wu Zongyue had already been found by Japanese climbers in 1980. Because the position of their camps and their routes were known, I assumed that Wu’s body must have been above Wang Hongbao’s “english dead”. This was the reason behind my radio call, “I could suggest that what we are looking for is lower down.”
At this point, Tap Richards and Jake Norton were already descending the broad gully, in which Mallory was later found. They were some 130 yards away and 230 ft. above. If Anker, who crossed into the bottom of the gully from SW (right), hadn’t found Mallory, Richards or Norton would certainly have soon after.
To summarize: Two climbers are 230 ft. above Mallory’s resting place. They are descending in the right direction – and from Base Camp comes the confirming call to look lower.
This is how Messner interprets the historical facts: “Conrad Anker found Mallory where Hemmleb didn’t tell them to search.” (letter to Journal Frankfurt, 4/2000). “Conrad Anker found Mallory far away from the pre-determined search area.” (Mount Everest – Expedition zum Endpunkt, S. 216).
Messner’s second allegation, Eric Simonson and I had claimed, Conrad Anker had free-climbed the Second Step, is even easier to refute: To quote from our book Ghosts of Everest (p. 148) with regard to Anker’s climb: “Reaching to the right and getting a firm handhold on the rock face, he pulled across, placing his foot on the rung where the edge was, and in only a few moments was at the top of the Second Step.”
The text therefore explicitly mentions the non-free ascent.
By contrast, the text on the flap of Anker’s book contains the following statement,
“Anker free-climbed the Second Step” (emphasis added)
Who is faking facts here, Mr. Messner?