THE PROBLEM OF KANGCHENJUNGA

F. S. SMYTHE

Kangchenjunga consists of a mountain massif of five summits which rise from a continuous ridge, running first of all in a WNW. direction, then bending NNW. and finally, after again running WNW., bending round to the NNW. From east to west the five summits are No. i (25,526 feet), No. 2 (27,888 feet), No. 3 (28,146 feet), No. 4 (? feet), and No. 5 (25,782 feet), sometimes known as the Kangbachen peak.¹

The summits may be identified on various maps as follows:

Summit	S. ofL 78 /A	Freshfield- Garwood	Kurz	Bauer-Finsterwalder
No. 1	..	..	..	7,780(25,526 ft.)
No. 2	..	27,820	8,480(27,823 ft.)	8,500(27,888 ft.)
No. 3	28,146	28,150	8,603(28,226 ft.)	8,579 (28,146 ft.)
No. 4	..	..	..	..
No. 5	25,782	27,780	7,858(25,782 ft.)	..

 

None give the height of No. 4, and it is not known with any accuracy. Bauer's heights of Nos. 1, 2, and 3, based by stereo-photogrammetry on the accepted height of No. 3, may be taken as accurate relative to that height. Kurz appears to have adopted an unofficial height for No. 3 based on certain researches in refraction carried out by Dr. de GraafF Hunter, but such research is not yet final, the height 28,226 feet is certainly too high, and his heights for Nos. 2 and 5 have not been similarly corrected and, therefore, are not relatively correct or in the same terms. The best heights that can be given as yet are therefore

	feet	metres
No. 1	25,526	7,780
2	27,888	8,500
3	28,146	8,579
4
5	25,782	7,858

 

In the text heights have been inserted where possible from the photogrammetric survey; elsewhere from the map by Marcel Kurz.—Ed.

From the ridge, as outlined above, subsidiary ridges radiate as follows: from summit No. 2, SSW.; from summit No. 3, NNE. (bifurcating to form a NE. spur); and from summit No. 5, SW.

Five glaciers drain the massif. Of these, three (the Zemu, Kang- chenjunga, and Yalung) originate from the flanks of the highest summit, No. 3, whilst of the remaining two, the Talung glacier originates from the flanks of summits Nos. 1 and 2, and the Ramtang glacier from summit No. 5.

Once the above details have been grasped (see sketch map page 71), it will be realized that not only does Kangchenjunga form a complicated massif, but that direct access to the summit via a continuous ridge, which does not involve traversing any of the remaining summits, is only possible via the NE. spur¹ and the NNE. ridge. Futhermore, access to any of the ridges other than the NE. spur is additionally complicated by the formidable subsidiary peaks which rise from them, among which may be mentioned the Talung peak (7,035 metres=23,082 feet), the Twins (7,350 metres=24,115 feet), and Teak 7,535 metres' (24,722 feet). So long and continuously elevated are the ridges of Kangchenjunga that in no instance is one of them easily accessible within five miles of the summit (as the ridge-crest goes).

Kangchenjunga is composed of granitic crystalline schists—solid material—but not dipping to any marked degree. Thus, there is geologically speaking no easy and no difficult side to the massif, except as dictated by the angle of the various faces.

Kangchenjunga does not exhibit a difference in climate on its northern and southern faces comparable to that exhibited on the northern and southern faces of Mount Everest. There is, however, a marked difference between the conditions experienced on these faces due to the proximity on the one hand of the Tibetan plateau and on the other of the low moist valleys of Sikkim, as a result of which the southern faces are warmer and moister than the northern faces, which are exposed in part to the west wind of Tibet, and also to convection currents resulting from the difference of temperature and the incidence of the deep Tista valley to the east, which is to Kangchenjunga what the Arun valley is to Everest. For these reasons the mountain is frequently subjected to high winds, except during the monsoon season (approximately May-October) when a general warmth, extending to high altitudes, renders strong convection currents less likely; although the mountain may on occasion be subjected to western disturbances and breaks or peaks in the strength of the

If I have dealt at some length with the weather it is because it has an important bearing not only on the climbing problem and choice of route, but on the choice of season. Experience suggests that it is improbable that the mountain can be climbed prior to the monsoon season, owing to high winds and frequent snowstorms, either local or resulting from western disturbances, allied to the length and technical difficulty of the climb, which is in excess of that up Mount Everest height for height.² Also, the climbing season prior to the monsoon is very short, and winter snow and consequent difficulties of transport make the establishing of a large camp in early April a most difficult and fatiguing business. As the monsoon may break in the first half of May,³ this may mean little more than a month for an ascent, which is not nearly long enough for a climb of such length and difficulty. It appears certain, therefore, that the monsoon season, after the 'first burst', when the snow has begun to compact, is the best season for an attempt, and that Herr Bauer's bold experiment in attacking the mountain during July, August, September, and even October was justified by results.

The first mountaineer to make an examination of Kangchenjunga, with a view to discovering a feasible route, was Mr. D. W. Freshfield, who in 1899 made a circuit of the mountain. In his 'How to Climb Kangchenjunga: a Topographical Note'⁴ he stresses the importance of reaching the col on the NNE. ridge between the summit and The Twins. He considered this col to be defended on the Zemu glacier (i.e. east side) by 'apparently impracticable and avalanche-swept precipices, while the singular buttress⁵, which, starting from the northern ridge⁶ half-way between the gap and the peak (The Twins), falls into the upper basin of the Zemu glacier, is one of the most repulsive aspect'.

As regards the west face of the NNE. ridge and the col Freshfield wrote: ' ... It is not impossible that a fairly safe line of ascent may be discovered.' Once the NNE. ridge was gained he considered that the ascent was practicable. He also mentioned that 'The very long ;md lofty western ridge of Kangchenjunga might certainly be traversed on or near its crest'. He evidently did not realize the magnitude of the Kangchenjunga problem or the potentialities of the Sherpa or Bhutia porters. If he had, he would not have written: . . Climbers must, like the Swiss conquerors of the southern peak of Ushba, be prepared to carry their own wraps and provisions for their nights out.'

 

The third possibility mentioned by Freshfield was an ascent of the SW. face at the head of the Yalung glacier by means of a shelf which sloped upwards from east to west across the precipice and is conspicuous from Darjeeling. Of this he wrote: 'This would be a very direct route up the sun-warmed face of the mountain, but a prodigious climb. Careful study of the face with regard to exposure to rock falls would be essential. The western ridge¹ would be gained close to the foot of the final peak not far below it.⁵

As regards the possibilities of routes on Kangchenjunga, it is proposed here to deal with the various faces and ridges, beginning with that portion of the mountain approached via the Yalung glacier, and work round the mountain in an anti-clockwise direction.

The first attempt to climb Kangchenjunga was made in 1904 by a party under the leadership of Mr. Aleister Crowley. This party attempted to follow the shelf mentioned by Freshfield, but disaster overtook them on the initial snow-slopes: an avalanche was detached and one European and three porters were killed.

As delineated in the Kurz map,² the Yalung, or SW. face of Kangchenjunga rises some 10,000 feet in a horizontal distance of approximately two miles (10,560 feet). The shelf mentioned by Freshfield is less steeply inclined than the face as a whole, but its average angle is nevertheless exceedingly steep, and when examined through a telescope appears to become steeper in its upper portion, where snow, ice, and neve give place to rock slabs seamed with incipient couloirs. Furthermore, and this applies to the SW. face as a whole, there must always be a grave danger of avalanches of rocks, ice, and snow dislodged by the sun which shines full on the face for the greater part of the day. This route (if, like other 'routes' I have to mention, it can be called a 'route') would take the mountaineer to the depression between Peak No. 2 and the summit, and once this is attained there should not be any great technical difficulty in reaching the summit. This route is the shortest and most direct route of all to the summit of Kangchenjunga, but owing to its situation it must be classed as unjustifiable.

The face between Peak No. 4 and Peak No. 5 appears quite impracticable, whilst, even should the hopeless looking face between Peak No. 5 and 'Peak 7,535 metres' (see the Kurz map) prove practicable and the col, at about 22,000 feet, between these two peaks be gained, the most the mountaineer could hope to climb would be Peak No. 5 via its SW. ridge.

 

The only other route from the Yalung glacier worthy of mention is that via the Talung saddle, 22,130 feet, the col between the Talung Peak, 23,082 feet, and Peak No. 2. Mr. Harold Raeburn, who visited the upper basin of the Yalung glacier, wrote of the approach from that glacier to the Talung saddle that it '. . . looked vicious in the extreme, defended everywhere by overhanging masses of ice^'.

In 1929 a young American, Mr. E. F. Farmer, with little or no mountaineering experience, conceived the idea of attempting Kangchenjunga via the Talung saddle. He was last seen by his porters climbing a snow-slope. He did not return (Himalayan Journal, vol. ii, 1930, p. 120).

Supposing the Talung saddle was reached, the ridge connecting it with Peak No. 2 can probably be climbed for some distance. The upper portion, however, is very steep and appears impracticable.¹ Even supposing the ridge proves practicable, what then? The climber finds himself on Peak No. 2 and separated from Peak No. 3 by a ridge nine-tenths of a mile long, a ridge by no means level, heavily corniced in places, as sharp as a knife in others, and defended by gaps and rock towers.

Next in order comes the SE. face which rises from the head of the Talung glacier. This great face is obviously impervious to direct assault for much the same reasons as the SW. face. Here the danger from falling debris, due to the sun's rays, is as great, and the face catches the sun even earlier than the SW. face, whilst the wealth of hanging glaciers adds to the danger.

Even supposing that the Talung saddle can be reached from the Talung glacier, the climber is confronted with the same difficulties as already outlined, and any route to the summit from this side involves the traverse of Peak No. 2.

It is also unlikely that the ESE. ridge of Peak No. 2, from which rises Peak No. 1, can be safely and easily reached west of the Zemu Gap, 19,276 feet, owing to the avalanche-swept nature of the face.

The Zemu Gap,² between Simvu (22,360 feet) and Peak No. 1 (25,526 feet), has been reached from the south on two occasions; by Mr. N. A. Tombazi in 1925, and by Major H. Boustead in 1926. The approach via the narrow Tongshyong glacier becomes dangerous soon after dawn. It has been suggested that Kangchenjunga might be attempted via the Zemu Gap (which is more easily and safely reached from the north via the Zemu glacier than from the south), but this route would involve the traverse of Peak No. 1 and Peak No. 2, and would, in the writer's opinion, be impossible,³ if only on the score of length and exposure. The difficulty would also be great. The length of the ridge from the Zemu Gap is about five miles.

We now come to the approaches from the Zemu glacier. These are soon enumerated. The Zemu Gap, as already mentioned, can be reached with comparative ease from the north. It is sufficient to write that the NE. face of Kangchenjunga is one of the most terrific mountain-sides in the Himalaya. There remains only the NNE. ridge and its bifurcation, the NE. spur. In spite of the length—about five miles as the ridge goes—and the obviously difficult nature of this route which, from about 18,500 feet to nearly 25,000 feet, lies up a snow and ice ridge (the NE. spur) of extraordinary difficulty, Herr Paul Bauer boldy led two Bavarian assaults on Kangchenjunga along it in 1929 and 1931. In scaling the NE. spur, after many weeks of arduous work, the party set a new standard for Himalayan mountaineers, for no mountaineer had previously attempted one of the long, sharp-fluted ice-ridges which are so characteristic of the Himalaya. In 1929 a height of over 24,000 feet was reached before a great snowstorm forced the party to retreat. That they were able to do so in safety without losing a life was due to a well-equipped line of communication.¹

 

In 1931 Bauer returned to the attack. This time a height of about 25,260 feet was reached. It was discovered that the NE. spur did not, as had been supposed, join crest to crest with the NNE. ridge, but abutted into the face some 300 feet below the crest of the said NNE. ridge. This face was covered with dangerous snow and could not be attempted when in such a condition.²

Herr Bauer is of the opinion that once the NNE. ridge is gained the remainder of the climb to the summit is relatively easy. It may seem presumptuous to disagree with his opinion, but, apart from the question of height and the west wind,³ the writer, since he examined the last 1,500 feet of this ridge from various angles, is convinced that it is not technically easy, if only because of its average angle and slabby appearance. This opinion is now shared by others who have examined the ridge through telescopes from various directions. As regards the effects of altitude, the difference between climbing from 25,000 feet to 26,000 feet and from 27,000 feet to 28,000 feet must be experienced to be appreciated. Probably, two more, and it may well prove three more, camps will be necessary above the highest camp yet pitched by the Bavarians.

Taking the foregoing into account, and in particular the dangerous snow-slope which defeated the Bavarians in 1931, there is no doubt that the ascent of Kangchenjunga will require more than ordinary luck with weather and snow conditions allied to more than ordinary skill and acclimatizing powers (supposing that oxygen apparatus is not employed). That the mountain will be climbed is certain and by this route; it may be one or fifty years hence.

The NW. face of Kangchenjunga is very different, both in appearance and as a problem, from the other faces of the mountain. This face is enclosed between the NNE. and WNW. (bearing NW.) ridges of the mountain. It consists of a series of shelves. These are covered in neve hundreds of feet thick which is constantly breaking away in great avalanches. The edges of these neve fields, which are hundreds of feet in height, protect the whole width of the face from assault.

 

Following Mr. Freshfield's suggestion in his Round Kangchenjunga and in his article in the Alpine Journal on 'How to climb Kangchenjunga: a Topographical Note', already alluded to, Professor G. Dyhrenfurth and an International Expedition tried to reach the col¹⁶ (22,622 feet), between Kangchenjunga (Peak No. 3) and The Twins, via the Kangchenjunga glacier and its east bay. They did not, as stated by Mr. Freshfield, in a letter published in the Alpine Journal,¹⁷ make . . a forlorn-hope assault on "the centre of the cirque" ', but did their best to avoid the cirque (so-called) altogether. Contrary to expectation, the North col and the NNE. ridge proved to be defended by an extension of the lower of the great neve terraces, and it was during an attempt to force a route up to the edge of this terrace that an ice avalanche occurred which killed a porter and nearly wiped out the whole climbing party.

There is no other practicable route from the Kangchenjunga glacier to the NNE. ridge, but Herren E. Schneider and U. Wieland, during their ascent of the Nepal Peak, noticed what appeared to be a practicable route up The Twins (24,115 feet) from the north. By traversing The Twins it might be possible to attack Kangchenjunga via the NNE. ridge, but it would be a very long route, and the descent from The Twins to the North col (22,622 feet) would militate against it. Also, even supposing the NNE. ridge between The Twins and Kangchenjunga can be gained, it by no means follows that the ridge will prove practicable. At a point between 23,500 feet and 24,500 feet the ridge, which is rocky in this section, appears to rise vertically for 200 or 300 feet and even overhang. Professor Dyhrenfurth proposed to avoid this apparently impracticable section by traversing across the east face of the ridge to the upper part of the NE. spur. But in the light of present knowledge we know that such a traverse would mean climbing the dangerous snow-slope that stopped the 1931 Bavarian Expedition, in order to regain the NNE. ridge. At all events, the traverse itself would most likely prove very dangerous, as it lies in the lee of the NNE. ridge, and the slope would usually hold avalanchy snow.¹⁸

Professor Dyhrenfurth made another attempt to climb Kangchenjunga via the NW. ridge. This ridge is not so continuous as it appears on the map. Its crest soon merges into a considerable plateau of neve on the NW. face of Peak No. 5 (Kangbachen Peak), and does not appear as a ridge again until the summit of Peak No. 5 is reached, whence there is a continuous ridge, via Peak No. 4, to the summit of Kangchenjunga. Length alone renders this route impracticable, and hanging glaciers and precipices force the climber into gaining the ridge at a point below its principal difficulties. The lower section of the ridge defeated the best efforts of the expedition, and there was never the remotest chance of gaining even the plateau on the NW. face of Peak No. 5. Supposing, however, that this plateau had been gained it would have been impossible to have avoided a traverse of Peak No. 5, as the plateau, which at first sight seems to extend across the NE. face of that peak, in reality ends in a deep cut-off. The only alternative, a traverse of Peak No. 5, is an obviously difficult one and would involve the ascent of several thousand feet of broken but steep rock.

The last approach is via the Ramtang glacier. This glacier has yet to be explored, but members of Professor Dyhrenfurth's expedition were able to examine it from the NW. ridge. The head of this glacier is exposed to ice avalanches that fall from the hanging glaciers of Peak No. 5 and the White Wave. It might be possible to force a route through a maze of dangerous seracs, and up steep snow and ice slopes to the col between Teak 7,535 metres' and Peak No. 5, but such a route would most likely prove very dangerous and the climber would have to traverse Peak No. 5 and Peak No. 4 to reach the summit. There is no possibility whatever of climbing the west face of Peak No. 5 from the Ramtang glacier.

To sum up, it is obvious that the summit of Kangchenjunga is well defended and that there is only one route which affords the remotest chance of success—the combination of the NE. spur and the NNE. ridge—unless climbers will be found to brave the terrors of the SW. face. They should not risk porters' lives by attempting such a route.

It is strange, perhaps, that such a well-defended mountain should possess a chink in its armour, but what a chink!

When Kangchenjunga is climbed it is to be hoped that it will be climbed by Herr Bauer and his party, for their great efforts of 1929 and 1931 have rendered them worthy of treading the summit of that most noble and magnificent of mountains.

⇑ Top