国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

At the same time I wrote a letter to Colonel Burrard and asked his opinion.
Colonel Burrard answered in a letter, dated Dehra Dun August 3rd 1910. Its
contents are so important, that they should be known and respected by everybody
who feels tempted to baptise mountains and lakes. The following is an extract:

»With reference to your proposed names for ranges the Indian Survey has strictly refused
to introduce personal names on its maps for 50 years, and looking back, I think, that its atti-
tude has met with general approval. In 1858 the Survey gave the name of Everest to the
highest mountain, calling it after the celebrated Indian geodesist. This name provoked a storm
of opposition, which has continued up to the present time. The Survey have adhered to the
name of Everest, but they resolved never again to introduce another English personal name
on to the map of Asia. If they had not strictly adhered to this resolution, the maps of the
Himalaya would now be covered with English names, — names of travellers, sportsmen, states-
men, governors, and women. In 1885 a political officer called the big mountain S.W. of Kash-
gar 'Mount Dufferin' after the Indian Viceroy: the Indian Survey have not accepted it. The
only personal names that the Indian Survey have accepted are: (1) Mount Everest in 1858.
(2) The Hedin mountains¹ after yourself. (3) Such names as Prejevalski and Humboldt which
were given by the Russians to portions of Northern Tibet which we had never explored, and
for which we were not responsible. — It may seem ungenerous of me to object to the pro-
posed names of Montgomerie and Strachey for ranges in Tibet, but the policy of the Indian
Survey in refusing personal names has been beneficial to maps of India, and should be
supported . . . There is a general opinion here that members of a Survey ought not to affix
their names to geographical features. The moment that the Survey accepts personal names,
it will receive numbers of requests. When there are several distinguished surveyors, who is
to arbitrate as to which is the most distinguished? If we accept the name Montgomerie, an-
other school of survey will ask us to accept Mount Holdich, and so on ad infinitum. The
name of Ryder given by Herr Habenicht to the range north of the Brahmaputra has met with
no approval in India. Ryder did not discover this range; he did not explore it . . . The
Indian Survey has always called this range (since 1888) the Kailas range, because they thought
that it was the same range (or earth-fold) on which stand the great Kailas peaks, the famous
Hindu shrine north of Manasarowar. If the Kailas peaks are not on the western extension of
this range, then the Kailas is wrong. — There are two other points about nomenclature that
I think are worthy of consideration. One is this. In a complicated mountain area it is so
difficult to analyse the individual ranges, that it is premature to distribute too many names.
We have not invented any names for the numerous Himalayan ranges: we have accepted the
native names, and have left the unnamed ranges without names. This course has proved ad-
vantageous, because detailed geological surveys are teaching us that the views of the original
explorers about the separate ranges were incorrect. What they thought were ranges often
prove not to be ranges. — My other point is this. The great objection to personal names is
that the names proposed are all European. On the map of Asia no one has ever proposed to
introduce the name of an Asiatic explorer. My opinion is, that no objection would be taken
if you gave the name of Nain Singh, or of Krishna (A—K) to Tibet mountains. I believe