Sherpas were on all the big western expeditions that I know of. Their names are just usually dropped when talking about it, which is a shame. I recently read Krakauer's Into Thin Air and appreciated that he treated the sherpas on the expedition as fellow humans. They figured as important as anyone else in the story. He was also careful when talking about past climbs to mention all the climbers, sherpa and otherwise.

Very interesting book for me. I knew (know?) very little about mountaineering.

For a long time, both Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary evaded the question of who summitted Everest first. They reached the top as a team.

Most of the "forgetting" seems to happen when it comes to communicating about larger, less notable expeditions.

Larger? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_British_Mount_Everest_exp...:

“The mountaineers were accompanied […] by 362 porters, so that the expedition in the end amounted to over four hundred men, including twenty Sherpa guides from Tibet and Nepal, with a total weight of ten thousand pounds of baggage”

I don’t know the details of that expedition, but typically, the sherpas make multiple trips up and down the mountain to bring the necessary material up to height, so that those paying can relatively comfortably acclimatize at height. Climbing Everest almost always is a team effort.

Even if you ignore those porters , those “twenty Sherpa guides from Tibet and Nepal”, IMO, deserve to be mentioned there more than Jan Morris, who didn’t make it further up the mountain than 22,000 feet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Morris).

(and aside: ten thousand pounds of baggage seems very low to me. That’s less than 30 pounds per porter ⇒ I guess that’s what made it to the highest camp)

While the Sherpa were crucial to success of the expedition, it's also important not to jump to the other extreme and underestimate the contributions of the British party. This was not a "guided" expedition where the clients were just going up in the wind shadow. Back in 1953, it's pretty unlikely that sherpa party could have summitted on their own.

If I remember correctly (it's a while since I read Hillary's account of the expedition), only three of the sherpa were able to go up to camp 4, and two of those them had to turn back due to altitude sickness. Tenzing Norgay did not have the technical knowledge to operate the oxygen systems. Also, crampons were far less advanced back then, so the mountaineers were also responsible for cutting steps every few days for all the routes that the porters were using to haul gear.

To emphasize your point, I'm well familiar w/ Sir Edmund, but TIL about Tenzing Norgay, thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzing_Norgay

In New Zealand, despite our somewhat child-like at times desire to be known on the world stage, we all largely know and acknowledge about Tenzing Norgay as well as Hillary - which is exactly what Sir Ed wanted.

They only have a photo of Norgay at the summit because Norgay didn't know how to take a picture of Hillary.

Kind of ironic to me that the less famous one is the only one with the photo! Ha!

Source? As I recall, Edmund stated he just didn't think of it in the heat (actually: cold) of the moment. They were only on the summit for a few minutes.

I'd be very surprised if a man of Tenzing's calibre and achievements could not figure out something so trivial.

Edit: I've found some citations that support your point, I apologize.

Although, I'd add (a) Tenzing's account states that he offered to take a photo but was declined. And (b) a more fair description would be "because he had never used a camera before" rather than "didn't know how to work a camera".

The later suggesting a lack of intelligence or civility (though I'm sure that wasn't your intent), I'm probably just nitpicking :-).

There is also mysticism in some Asian cultures about photos and taking other peoples photos around stealing souls etc.

This potentially could be a reason as well that he wasn’t brave enough to admit.

But at the same time he allowed a photo of himself to be taken (his soul be stolen)?

That theory doesn't make sense to me.

funny thing is that the first "who wants to be a millionaire" winner in Germany had him as million [Deutsche Mark] question ("who climbed the mount everest with Edmund Hillary" or something like that). And that's why his name has always stuck in my head. However, it also goes to show that he is less famous than Hillary.

Hillary did a lot for the Sherpa community, and he rightfully gave Tenzing the acknowledgement that he deserved, one of the first western mountaineers to do so.

If you go to Everest region in Nepal, there are schools and even airport built by him just above Namche Bazaar... truly great contribution back. He literally spent decades of his later life trying to develop mainly Sherpa communities which lived in brutal poverty, largely left on their own by central government. Let's not forget Nepal was and still is one of the poorest countries in the world. Very few benefit from tourism, and money Sherpa earn is brutal compared to rest of non-mountaineering population.

Basically you either join Gurkha and fight for British, go for mountaineering career, become a corrupt government official (which you can't just join due to nepotism) or try to leave if you have money for it.

This 'critique' goes both ways and kind of show its natural to humans - when both Tenzing and Hillary came back to India from Nepal (Nepal didn't have an international airport back then, and it took quite a bit of time to built one, all expeditions went through India's sea ports) - Hillary was almost completely ignored, and Tenzing was the only one to be celebrated.

I understand the motivations ie due to past shameful english colonialism, plus good old nationalism. But its like that everywhere. It doesn't make it any more acceptable these days obviously.

I'd say that the days of Sherpas being completely invisible have passed. There is now something of a noble savage mystique around them, unhelpful in its own way. You get brownie points for virtue signalling about your gratitude to Sherpas today. They often get to keep gear that their clients no longer need after their trip, for example. Hopefully their status continues to rise.

What is somewhat sadder is the fate of the porters on which almost every expedition and trek, except the purest of pure self-supported alpine expeditions, still relies. These are poor people who are typically from the lowlands, acting as sole breadwinners for their families, doing difficult, dangerous manual labor at high altitude without beneficial genetic adaptations or decent clothing. There are some good small charities trying to improve their conditions, for example https://www.canepal.org.uk/

> except the purest of pure self-supported alpine expeditions

Do these exist? From what I understand Sherpas are the ones building the routes every year... So even if you hike alone, pack all of your stuff into base camp alone (good luck! many trips), carry all your own ladders and ropes, and pack all of your stuff up to each subsequent camp alone... you're still hiking on routes that Sherpas built at the beginning of the season...

The use of Sherpas to open routes is restricted to a relatively small number of the most popular and lucrative routes, usually in Nepal. Most "proper" climbers look down on any notion of routes bring prepared - fixed equipment, ladders, etc.

There are a good number of expeditions of a higher standard of mountain ethics which still happen and still many new routes to claim in the Himalayas. But these are far removed from the world of the stereotype of the type of person who wants to climb Everest who get all the media attention - look up Nick Cienski for a good example of virtue signalling, ego and narcism.

If you're interested, The Alpine Journal is an excellent resource for capturing all the lesser known alpinists doing amazing things with little to no media attention and a tiny budget. Among the low key mountaineers the is even a bit of a culture of not reporting first ascents, due to the bureaucratic nature of permits - allowed to climb one peak, but not one next door. Those in the know, who are looking for a more pure climbing experience, prefer India and Pakistan where permits are easier to obtain, there are virtually no climbers and hundreds of new routes to do in unspoilt valleys.

For K2, it is usually the Pakistani porters from Gilgit-Baltistan: https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistani-porters-the-uns...

> Their names are just usually dropped when talking about it, which is a shame.

Reminds me of Amir Mehdi's story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Mehdi#K2_(1954)

Very few locals historically went above base camp, it used to be really tricky to even get them to deliver goods to base camp. They were afraid, always broke previously agreed contract, tried to negotiating extra money. Plus had ridiculously bad clothing/shoes for such an environment.

Basically every expedition in Pakistan in the past struggled with this, and they even had an additional budget for this.

That's very nice to hear, and I'll check the book out.

While on a cruise ship last July (well, 2019) I made friends with a Nepalese security screw and we talked about Nepal and their family occupations. It's very sad to hear of how disposably sherpas are treated on the vanity tours by unskilled foreign climbers. Basically the sherpas end up dragging along their clients and they face outsized risk on the way.

And yet Krakauer had no issues throwing a guy, who tried to save some of the members of his team, under the bus when Krakauer messed up, and turned a hero into a villain.

Jon Krakauer has responded to Anatoli Boukreev here[0], it seems as like most things in life, there is more nuance this than just hero villain dichotomy.

[0] https://medium.com/galleys/a-postscript-to-into-thin-air-e23...

That Kazakh person can't defend himself any longer and Krakauer's story is highly suspicious due to glaring holes/omissions - perfect knowledge of the incoming storm yet deciding to move forward, "hallucinated all the way down" as a defense for not helping Beck Weathers, sleeping in a tent while Anatoli was saving clients, expecting from the barely surviving Kazakh climber a perfect knowledge of English etc. Krakauer is a talented writer writing compelling stories but his throwing mud on a deceased climber who managed to save all his clients in the death zone that night is just disgusting.

This. He writes good, but its kind of accepted in climbing community that he really messed up with Everest disaster, lied, tried to blame others for his own fails etc.

Source? Because his response to The Climb, linked above, seems pretty damning.

Edit: found a source to balance, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB864852385619851000

I believe there is some form of memory bias or bias in reporting by the media. If you look at the record books, you will find that most records are held by Sherpas. For example, more than 70 records for Mount Everest is held my Sherpas (or other Nepalese climbers) [1], far more than climbers from any other country.

Apa Sherpa, one of the most prolific Sherpas, holds many records [2]. Interesting fact he was Sherpa to Peter Hillary (Edmund's son).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mount_Everest_records [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apa_Sherpa

It takes a lot of disposable income to be a serious climber. Top Western climbers are either well-off or funded by the well-off (patrons, companies, or even governments sometimes).

This funding has historically not been available directly to Sherpas. That is partially because they did not have platforms to influence the purchasing decisions of a large audience (the main reason companies fund full-time climbers). And it’s partially because Western cultures tended not to value indigenous people the same way it valued their own citizens.

Both of those have been changing a lot in the past decade, and it’s nice to see younger Sherpas able to take advantage of that.

> It takes a lot of disposable income to be a serious climber.

If you're not specifically talking about high-altitude climbing, then I'd argue this is wrong. There are famous *serious* climbers like Fred Beckey who managed to make climbing their entire lives on next to no income. Lots of serious climbers build up their rack from "booty" (taking material abandoned by other climbers in a range of situations, often bordering on questionably unethical), live in a van or a tent, hitchhike, etc.

The climbing permit for Everest alone costs $11000.

Again, if you're not specifically talking about high-altitude climbing. High-altitude climbing is barely even the same discipline as what 99% of climbers do.

They may be culturally and physically acclimatized to mountains in every way, but not likely to the notion of 'mountaineering/climbing' in the romantic sense.

After all it serves no purpose, requires development of new tech, money etc..

I don't think anyone doubts they couldn't have done it long ago were some local ruler to have made it a priority.

I wonder if they thought the original European 'explorers' to be completely mad.

So that leaves the question: the mountains were 'right there' and they had innate ability, so why didn't they 'just do it', and have the routes all mapped out for centuries already? Is I think the rhetorical question that unpacks a lot of things.

That is an interesting question. I think the most obvious answer is that exploration is predicated on a certain level of technological advancement, below which it is completely unreasonable. If you don't have a food surplus and some academic establishment and governance and trade routes, exploration is an unreasonable vanity project. Guns, Germs, and Steel grazes this topic.

As Nepal develops further, I expect to see more of these sorts of headlines.

I suspect that, before the industrial revolution, everyday life was adventurous enough. Climbing didn't take off until the 19th Century, when the romantic movement was reacting against the safety and boredom of modern life, at least for elites. Life in Nepal might have problems, but I doubt that boredom due to excessive safety is one of them.

I've been meaning to read that history for a long time, but never gotten around to it:

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Dragons-Conquest-Fergus-Flemi...

Climbing started as part of territory disputes and non-military shows of national bravado. There’s been a repeated surge after wars wrap up- perhaps a stand-in trial for young men to prove themselves after the trial of combat ends.

Many bold & great climbers of history were young men of no fame from poor countries. There weren’t that many wealthy dukes just looking for a way to pass the time.

> There’s been a repeated surge after wars wrap up

What are you referring to? The Second World War seems like the obvious case. I think there were two things at play there. European climbers returned to the Himalayas, and resumed where they left off in 1939; perhaps the war delayed the ascent of Everest instead of causing it. Also, nylon! Ropes that don't break—and that don't break falling lead climbers—were a huge enabling technology for rock climbing.

The Indian subcontinent was very wealthy on the whole, and also extremely unequal, there are innumerable testaments to that. See: Taj Mahal etc.

Very poor on a 'per-capita' basis but with unlimited labour.

That said, slave labour doesn't necessarily advance technology.

It’s also predicated on the existence of an economy which provides ample leisure for some while others labor ceaselessly at the edges of poverty. There’s a reason the Indian sub-continent lacked a food surplus, academic establishments, strong governance etc. Great Britain looted an estimated $45 billion from its Indian colonies during the 173 years of its rule.

Let's not dismiss nation-state exploration with having an overly indulgent hobby.

Establishing and mapping boundaries, demonstrating military abilities, and even finding/protecting the trade routes you speak of, all required exploration on a large scale.

Not to mention things like establishing trade and a friendly presence with locals, establishing surveillance posts, and my personal favorite, surveying the geoid, as a means to better ICBM guidance.

Military always makes reason, and I suspect that might also be at play in Nepal.

Somewhat related, highly recommend this documentary. It really shows the untold story of how hard of a life it is for a porter in the Everest region of Nepal. This is such a great story, and very well done by Nathaniel Menninger. https://youtu.be/MxAU4wWG2Hs

It’s been said that history is written by the winners. I guess you could also say history is written by the people who pay for it.

Its nice to see Nepal with this first winter books finally in the history books. They done so much for mountaineering.

Voluntarily climbing the top of a mountain is like a hobby rich people do. Later it became a matter of nationalism. A climbing expedition takes a ton of money.

BS. Climbing was first done by crazy Mountain Kids, then the big state sponsored expeditions started (a first that was the north and south-pole), GB missed both and shifted to the biggest mountain with GB "Won" the race, hence the name of Everest as the "third pole".

A modern (new age) expedition looks more like that (no Sherpas no help from others who don't climb):

http://www.alpinist.com/doc/ALP10/climbing-note-siegrist

Thalay Sagar with Stephan Siegrist and Rob Frost