Introduction
I have approached a number of people to write articles, but if readers
would like to contribute an article please contact me. The only two
stipulations I make are that the article has to be hill related and that I
don't end up in court through its publication! Otherwise the choice of subject
matter is down to the Guest Contributor.
Guest Contributor – John Kirk
 |
| John Kirk has instigated some of the most progressive hill listings in recent years, including Kirk's BIG Mountain List and The Thousanders. In more recent times he has specialised in listing Spanish mountains |
Mountain Nationality –
Time to
have a Beef and take a Stand!
I write this article to suggest
a common sense approach to the allocating of nationality to hills along
borders. This is actually not just an issue to affect the comparatively small
numbers of people involved in the making of hill lists, but an issue that affects
‘ordinary’ people.
I was involved a few years ago
in constructing hill lists for Spain, and separately for the Pyrenean mountain
chain. One of the first issues to consider was that of mountain nationality.
People who make hill lists use valleys and cols, where possible, to separate
hill regions and hill groups, because it is totally logical and fits the
purpose. On the other hand, people who set administrative boundaries find that
the ridges of hills make very suitable boundaries. Populations on either side
of a ridge of hills identify with those hills; they see them as theirs. These are both the real and psychological
boundaries to their homeland that define their lives.
.jpg) |
| Fact or theft? The incorporation of Savoy into France puts the boundary as the watershed. There is no mention of the boundary taking a circuitous tour around Mont Blanc. The Italians appear correct. The French appear greedy |
As a classic example, the
villages and farms of West Herefordshire see the dark line of The Black
Mountain as the Western backdrop to their lands. All they can see is English
and the mountain is their boundary. Conversely, when the people of the Vale of
Ewyas look to the wall of hills to their east, all they can see is Welsh and that
hill ridge is “owned” by them. The boundary is the ridge of the hill and the
greater hill performs an inclusive dual national role. One side is English, the
other Welsh, and all are happy.
The boundary was intended to be
the watershed, and that was it.
.jpg) |
| The summit of Peel Fell. Over a full metre into England |
When the Ordnance Survey in the
nineteenth century came along to map everything with a much greater degree of
accuracy, a line was drawn on the map showing that boundary. It was accurate,
but not precise. In this world, one can be roughly accurate but precisely
wrong. The Twenty-First Century Ordnance Survey have no idea on what basis the
border line is precisely where it is on the undefined section on top of The
Black Mountain. It is just copied from the old map when a new one is made.
The “Accurate” line of the OS
can now be “precisely” mapped on the ground as an infinitely thin line. The
individual tufts of grass along the broad backed ridge can also be surveyed by
super precise satellite technology and a summit point, infinitely small, can be
identified and measured to the centimetre above sea level.
The outcome will be that this
singularity will be in either Wales or England. The fact that some of the
surveyors will be Welsh or Welsh-resident will, I am sure, not sway the result
at all!
The true logic is that the
Black Mountain is a dual national summit; it is both a Tommy and a Taffi.
Anything else would be divisive and unreasonable.
 |
| The Black Mountain. Where is the border and where is the summit? Be it English or Welsh, the pavement has been imported from Yorkshire |
A Hill is not just a single
point. It is a large area of land and, if the summit of a hill is a few metres
beyond a boundary fence at the top, it makes no difference. A hill is not just
a summit. There is a science of a singularity, and a singularity has no space,
it has no relative height, no snow can accumulate on it in the winter, no larks
sing for a mate upon it in the spring, no beasts graze it in the summer and no
berries can be picked from it in the autumn.
The simple decision should be
made on inclusiveness. If a hill is substantially in two countries, it is the
backdrop to the lives of mountain walkers, farmers and citizens from two
nations; it can be on two lists.
My problem with the creation of
a list of the summits in the Pyrenees was that an extraordinarily large number
of summits lie on that border between France and Spain. French and Spanish
cartography do not match and, to complicate the issue, we have Andorra thrown
in the mix too. There is even a triple national mountain to contend with.
.jpg) |
| A pair of border fences cross Carter Fell with the OS column in Scotland. On this hill the highest point can be anywhere within 100 metres of the fence |
The natural lie of the land
along almost the length of the Pyrenean border gives a long slope on the
Spanish side culminating at the summit, with a much steeper and sometimes
vertical drop into France. In some cases it seems almost cheek for the French
to claim a summit, because it is as if the French part of the mountain is
actually missing!
The solution that fitted the
problem for the Pyrenees was an application of a 100 metre rule. If a summit is
located within 100 metres of the border, it is a dual national. This rule has
resulted in 64 peaks over 2,000 metres with greater than 150 metres of drop
(Marilyn Standard) along the line of the Pyrenees listed as dual nationals. The
use of 100 metres was purely arbitrary, but as a matter of fact there are
actually none of these summits more than 65 metres from the border line. At the
other end of the scale, the nearest near miss for dual national status is over
500 metres from the border. The rule could have been 70 metres or 500 metres
with the exactly the same result. It did produce a list which could stand up to
scrutiny and did prove inclusive to all three countries with borders in the
Pyrenees.
The reason I write this article
is to try to point out an inconsistency along the border between England and
Scotland. The lack of an accepted protocol on dual national hills in Britain is
the problem.
The border between England and
Scotland has the following Dewey / Hewitt standard summits along its length:-
Name of Mountain
|
Height
|
Relative
|
Group
|
Grid Ref
|
Map
|
Status
|
Peel Fell
|
602.7
|
197
|
Kielder
|
NY 625 997
|
L80
|
D,DD
|
Carter Fell
|
579
|
102
|
Kielder
|
NT 682 052
|
L80
|
D,DD
|
Hungry Law
|
501
|
74
|
Cheviot
|
NT 747 061
|
L80
|
D,DD
|
Brownhart Law
|
508
|
64
|
Cheviot
|
NT 788 093
|
L80
|
D,DD
|
Beefstand Hill
|
562
|
70
|
Cheviot
|
NT 821 144
|
L80
|
DD
|
Windy Gyle
|
619
|
113
|
Cheviot
|
NT 855 152
|
L80
|
H
|
Birnie Brae
|
508
|
31
|
Cheviot
|
NT 871 206
|
L74
|
D,DD
|
The Schil
|
601
|
134
|
Cheviot
|
NT 869 223
|
L74
|
D,DD
|
Black Hagg
|
549
|
65
|
Cheviot
|
NT 861 237
|
L74
|
D
|
With these nine summits, Windy Gyle is a Hewitt rather than
a Dewey, but the issue is still the same.
.jpg) |
| John Kirk on the summit of Windy Gyle. But which country is he in? |
In 2012, Beefstand Hill (see
title of this article) was deleted from the list of Deweys. It was observed
that a tuft of vegetation on the Scottish side of the summit was the apparent
highest point. This resulted in the deletion of the one hundred square
kilometre hill from the Dewey List.
 |
| The summit of Beefstand Hill. The summit is that turf of grass just over the border fence, centre right of picture |
Deleting Beefstand Hill did not
resolve an inconsistency, it created one. If any rationalisation of the lists
to which these hills belong is to be carried out, then it should all be done in
one move rather than a piecemeal demotion / deletion of just one summit. Of the
nine, Windy Gyle is currently a Hewitt and a Donald, and six tops are both
Dewey and Donald Dewey. The other exception is Black Hagg where the summit is
some way into England (68 metres) and not listed as a Donald Dewey.
If it is to be accepted that a
mountain is but a single point, a singularity, and that the England / Scotland
border is a line, infinitely thin, then of the above nine hills, there can be
no dual nationals, and that a careful measure of the highest point location and
the border line will reveal which list each hill should be included in.
.jpg) |
| Hungry Law, 501m. 75% of the hill is in England and the summit OS column fits just inside of the corner of the Scottish side of the border fence. Is the fence in the right place? Where is the true summit point? Should it matter? |
If one looks at a mountain just
being a summit, as defined, a singular pencil sharp point, then such an
approach could be justified. However, hills and mountains are large items,
usually covering several if not many square kilometres. As there is a tendency
to use mountain ranges and ridges as political borders then it is not uncommon
for hills to be regarded as having joint nationality.
The history of the English
/Scottish border is quite fascinating, but it only became a precise fine line
within the last 200 years. In medieval times the broad ridge of the hills was
regarded as the border with the one exception of the Kielder Stone, a large
rock which was used as a symbol of the border for local people. Today’s border
respects this historic connection, and leaves the watershed to descend to the
upper North Tyne (English) side to pass through the great stone before
returning to the ridge. This has the effect of leaving the Donald Dewey of
Carlin Tooth totally in Scotland. The rest of the route is along the watershed,
the clearly intended boundary set by the Earls of Douglas and of
Northumberland. 200 years ago a line of boundary stones was put in place on the
ridge and subsequently the Ordnance Survey joined the dots, drawing straight
lines between them. Later a fence was built, but this follows the border only
generally, as the boundary stones did. The straight lines drawn by the OS are
now considered to be precise, and these do not follow exactly the watershed. If
they did, then they would pass precisely straight through those highest points
on the hills, like the highest tuft of rough grass being eaten by those
remarkably ugly goats that summer on the summit of Beefstand Hill.
.jpg) |
| The summit of Beefstand Hill. The summit turf in process of being eaten! |
That border line, as drawn by
the Ordnance Survey, is now set as an absolute. The O.S. will just copy and
perpetuate it. That marked border was roughly accurate. Without a sensible protocol, a rule that
creates inclusivity that is logical and defendable, those survey boys will make
mountain listing on the border a precise nightmare.
For a sensible protocol that
would work for national borders within the UK, I would propose as a starting
point a 400 metre rule. (It would work almost as well with either 50 metres or
a kilometre!)
This would take a national
border, which is a line of no width, and extend a zone 400m wide, 200m into
each adjoining nation. In respect of any mountain list, all qualifying summits
within that 400 metre band would be considered joint nationals, and a hill of
both countries.
.jpg) |
| Brownhart Law. Photo taken from the true summit looking west. The border fence is on the left, but it may not be in the right place. Look beyond, England is the smooth grass on the left, Scotland is the heather and thistles on the right? |
The reasoning is simple. It is
better to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
If mountain lists, like the Deweys and Donald Deweys are going to have
any joint national peaks at all, then they may as well have all within a hop,
skip and a jump of the border. Anything else is ridiculous. All or none is the
consistent position, and all is far more tenable than none.
What this would mean is not too
dramatic:
- Beefstand
Hill is reinstated as a Dewey.
- Black
Hagg becomes a Donald Dewey as well as a Dewey.
- Hatterall
Hill is considered a dual (Welsh/ English) national. (No effect on the
Dewey list)
- It
creates a proper definition to regulate the activities of earnest
surveyors.
I think everyone would not be
unhappy with that outcome, as opposed to the alternative!
Who makes the decision? In a
British context, in the absence of any governing body, whatever Michael Dewey
and David Purchase decide between them is the law!
John Kirk