ASIAN ALPINE E–NEWS
Issue No.36, September 2018

CONTENTS

Kristjan-Erik Suurvali
Estonian team climbed highest unclimbed peak
- Indian Eastern Karakoram Kunzang Range -Page 2 ~ 27

Masayuki Kitamura
The Mekong River-Descents and Explorations of Headwaters-

Page 28 ~ 53

Translation: Tamotsu (Tom) Nakamura

1

Kristjan-Erik Suurvali
Estonian team climbed highest unclimbed peak
- Indian Eastern Karakoram Kunzang Range On July 22 Estonian team - Kristjan-Erik Suurväli, Priit Simson, Priit Joosu, Lauri Ehrenpreis, Lauri Stern, Sven Oja, Meelis
Luukas and liaison officer Stanzing Norby and Sherpa Passang Temba Bhutia summited unclimbed peak 6801 (Lat: N
34°37'06.3192" Lon: E 78°04'38.7084") in East Karakoram Ladakh, India.
We left Rongdo village on 9th July (3,200m) to start 60 km trek towards the mountain. We trekked three days to basecamp (5,300m). During trek, we made overnight stops in Doksa summer village (4,045 m) and Hot Springs (4,607 m; N
34°29'13.2216", E 77°56'59.2800"), BC was established next to the moraine of the Sagtopa glacier (5,387 m N
34°31'02.9136", E 77°59'10.8348"). Our main objective was a highest summit in the region referred at the Ladakh andZanskar North map by Olizane as being 6721 meters and at Indian/(US NI 44-05) maps as 6751 meters (22150 ft.) high.
We used 20 horses for carry loads from road head all the way to BC. From BC to ABC we intended to use 15 porters, 3
porters fell sick while arriving to BC.
On July 15th we crossed most of the southeast Shukpa Kunchang Glacier and established intermediate camp at 5,778 m (N
34°33'32.8536" E 78°01'10.9560"). Glacier was in good shape, covered with strong snow and snow bridges over crevasses
and did not provide any particular difficulties. There more porters turned back and we continued with nine porters, sharing
load carry also ourselves.
On July 16th we climbed to the col between SE Shukpa Kunchang Glacier and Phurdukpa Glacier. We crossed the col at the
point 6041 m (N 34°34'18.1200" E 78°01'53.9040"). The lowest point of the Col was at the 5981 meters, but heavily
corniced and crevassed from the North side, so that we had to climb bit up and find suitable point to make a 180-meter
rappel. It was first know crossing of the col, so we named it “Estonian Col”. Our intention to was fix the col so that we
could constantly supply ABC to take several climbing and exploratory trips from there. Col appeared to steep andcrevassed for our remaining 9 porters to make repeated crossings. In addition, we did not have spare fixed rope to leave
there., so we failed to carry out initial plan for longer climbing trips and concentrated from there on to unclimbed peak6751.
On the 17th we established ABC at the crossing of Phurdukpa glacier and unnamed glacier that leads to the mountain at
the height 4,878 m (N 34°36'28.6668" E 78°07'30.5508"). ABC was next to the river at windy and sandy spot, so we named
it “windy corner” . Fortunately, we found pool of fresh water at the vicinity of the ABC. On 18th 7 porters under theleadership of sherpa Dawa Jeba went back to BC.
On the 19th we moved to the unnamed glacier and in the worsening weather established intermediate camp at 5,553 m(N 34°36'24.8796“, E 78°05'22.5456“). Next day we moved from unnamed glacier to the mountain itself and next to therock island set 2nd camp at 5,935.53 m (N 34°36'38.6316" E 78°03'48.5388") and on the 21th we established high camp on
the SW ridge at the 6298 m (N 34°36'46.0836" E 78°04'12.7200"). Morning of the July 22nd started with snowfall so we
had to postpone summit attempt from 2 AM to 4 AM. Still it was snowing and windy, but we climbed first snow slopes inon the firm snow. There was ice step before entering couloir leading under summit pyramid. Step was about 30 meters atheight (grade WI 3).
Summit pyramid itself consisted manly loose rocks and we took outmost care not to drop any stones to each other heads.
Summit was short knife-edge snow ridge at the height 6801 meters (N 34°37'06.3192" E 78°04'38.7084").
Due to continuously clouded weather and snowfall, return to the Rongdo valley was more dangerous. Snow-bridges on SE
Shukpa Kunchang glacier were softer and rope-leader took five falls to crevasses.
1

On Google map mountain is named Kunchang Kangri. In Eberhard Jurgalski “All mountains and main peaks above 6650 m”(http://www.8000ers.com) mountain is called “"PHURDUKPO KANGRI I" and Günter Seyfferth from http://www.himalayainfo.org/ calls it - “Unnamed Peak I Kungzang”, The Mountain Encyclopedia: AN A to Z, lists it as “Mandaltang I”. Therefore,
it is sure that the mountain has no common name, nor has it been correctly measured before.
We took liberty to name mountain “Rangston Gyathok” meaning in Ladakhi one hundred years of independence, tocelebrate 100-year birthday of Estonian Republic.
Mountain true height 6801 meters will make it world 294th highest mountain, with prominence over 500 meters and its
prominence being 1041 meters instead of 991 meters.
Rimo Expeditions, whose leaders Chewang Motup Yangdu Goba were great help to us, provided expedition logistics. In
addition, unexpected, but unreplaceable asset was LO Stanzing Norby passionate climber with great knowledge about
Ladakh history.
Liason Officer - Stanzing Norby (Norboo)
Crew: Sherpa’s Passang Temba Bhutia and Dawa Jeba.
BC cook Sanber, ABC cook Nima Dorje.
Two remaining porters making carry to the high camp were Lokrjat Thakur and Prakash Pokhral.

Summit picture - DSC08726 - Copy

2

From left to right Passang Temba Bhutia, Lauri Stern, Stanzing Norby, Meelis Luukas, Sven Oja, Kristjan-Erik Suurväli, Lauri
Ehrenpreis, Priit Joosu, Priit Simson.

Our ABC and onwards crew from left to right after expedition in Rongdo village: Passang Temba Bhutia, Prakash Pokhral,
Dawa Jeba, Nima Dorje, Sanber, Lokrjat Thakur and L.O. Stanzing Norby (Norboo)

3

4

5

6

7

Karakoram_EST_selected descriptions. Photos are in daily chronological order
Filel name
DSC06001

DSC06007

karakoram_2018_007

DSC08586

DSC_072820180715_311

DSC_073020180715_313
DSC06023

DSC06026

DSC08590

DSC_073720180715_320
DSC_074320180715_326

karakoram_2018_010
karakoram_2018_012
8Description
View from the end of Sagtopa glacier
towards to SE Shukpa Kunchang glacier. (Airwarriors Col) During recce from BC. Left is
the moraine of Black Pyramid Peak’ 6235m(X3) that was climbed during summber by
Keith Goffin, Ralph Eberle and Tsewang
GyalsonView towards to the SE Shukpa Kunchangglacier. Prominent summit in centre is Nga
Kangri (6165 m) climbed Divyesh Muni anothers on 2017
View from the SE Shukpa Kunchang glacier
towards col and Peak 6751. Visible is south
face of the peak. We climbed ridge on
centre right, then made small traverse tocentre snow-ice couloir and finished up to
the left over rocks and then directly tosummit. See karakoram_2018_007_LI.jpg
Col directly from underneath. Upper part issnow cornices towards North. Our climbing
rout is out of the picture left.
View to North West from small col between
glacier coming from Sagtopa to to SE
Shukpa Kunchang glacier and Aragan Kangri
etc.
Same but bit more North. Col we crossed ist
o the right of centre.
View to the Black Pyramid Peak’ 6235m,
from the place previous picture was taken.
Dispute with porters and some of themturned back because of altitude problems.
View to North col and peak 6751 are rightfrom centre of photo. On the right is Nga
Kangri (6165 m)
SE Shukpa Kunchang towards to Rongdo.
Mountain on the left should be Khyng
Kangri (6183 M) climbed on 2013
SE Shukpa Kunchang towards west (Argan
Kangri)Our camp on SE Shukpa Kunchang glacier
towards col. On the right is small unclimbed
peak.
SE Shukpa Kunchang towards west (Argan
Kangri)
Descending to the col from East

AuthorLauri Ehrenpreis

Lauri Ehrenpreis

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

Lauri Ehrenpreis

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Lauri Ehrenpreis

Lauri Ehrenpreis

Sven Oja

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

Priit Simon
Lauri Ehrenpreis

DSC08599
DSC08600
20180716_093140
20180716_111536
20180716_122845
karakoram_2018_013
DSC08607
karakoram_2018_015

DSC06085
20180716_144843
DSC06088
karakoram_2018_021
DSC06116

DSC08659
DSC_089520180720_478

DSC_089920180720_482

DSC06129
DSC06133
DSC06138
DSC_091220180720_495
DSC_092020180720_503
DSC_092220180720_505
DSC_092920180720_512
DSC_094620180721_529
9View to the side of Phurdukpa glacier. Peak
6751 is visible triangle on the rightView to the side of Phurdukpa glacier.
Our ascent path to col and approximatecrossing point (20180716_093140_LI.jpg)
View from col towards South West (Argan
Kangri)View from col towards Nort WestCol route finding. We had to descend to the
Phurdukpa glacier on the right
Left is Phurdukpa glacier, cornices on thecol.
Col from Phurdukpa glacier. Right side is big
bergschrund, to where we dropped 4 bags
and had lot of trouble getting them out.
Col on the right and unclimbed peak.
Col with unclimbed peak.
Phurdukpa glacier with unclimbed peak
opposite to the col
Peak 6751 from South. Picture taken from
Phurdukpa glacier
Glacier end that leaded under the Peak
6751. Peak 671 visible on the backgroundfrom East
Same as previous Peak 6751 visible on the
background from East
Glacier end that leaded under the Peak
6751. Intermediate camp Peak 6751 visible
from South.
Glacier end that leaded under the Peak
6751. View to west. Range of unclimbed
mountains.
View to South from camp 5,935 on peak
6751
View to South from camp 5,935 on peak
6751
View to South from camp 5,935 on peak
6751
View to South side from camp 5,935 on
peak 6751
View to South from camp 5,935 on peak
6751
View to South side from camp 5,935 on
peak 6751
View to South side from camp 5,935 on
peak 6751
View to South side from camp 5,935 on
peak 6751

Sven Oja
Sven Oja
Lauri Stern
Priit Simson
Priit Simson
Priit Simson
Sven Oja
Sven Oja

Lauri Ehrenpreis
Lauri Stern
Lauri Ehrenpreis
Priit Simson
Lauri Ehrenpreis

Sven Oja
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

Lauri Ehrenpreis
Lauri Ehrenpreis
Lauri Ehrenpreis
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

DSC_095820180721_541

DSC08696
DSC_097920180721_562
DSC_102220180721_605

20180721_143638

DSC_102620180721_609
DSC08716
karakoram_2018_034
DSC08734

karakoram_2018_036
DSC08740
DSC08741
DSC08744
DSC08754

20180722_085241
DSC08756
DSC06192
DSC06201

DSC06310

10

Summit pyramid on the way to high camp.
Way to the top marked on
DSC_095820180721_541_LI
View towards summit from high camp
View from high camp towards west (tilting
bit north)View from high camp towards east (southeast) on the left should be China and on theright India.
View from high camp towards east (southeast) on the left should be China and on theright India.
Summit pyramid same as
DSC_095820180721_541
Climbing towards summit on firm snow.
Vieaw to east
SummitView approximately 4-5 meters fromsummit on the last rocky place towards
west (South west)
summitSummit, view to North

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

View from summit to south (south west)side
summitView approximately 4-5 meters fromsummit on the last rocky place towards
west. Visible col between 6751 andmountain left to it if looking North on themap
Climbing up last rock steps to summit.
Descending
View from approximately 6400 to South
Lower part of the glacier under 6751. Niceand firm. Upper part was more crevassed
and also snow covered.

Sven Oja

Sven Oja
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Kristjan-Erik Suurväli

Lauri Stern

Kristjan-Erik Suurväli
Sven Oja
Sven Oja
Sven Oja

Sven Oja
Sven Oja

Sven Oja
Sven Oja

Lauri Stern
Sven Oja
Lauri Ehrepreis
Lauri Ehrepreis

Lauri Ehrepreis

DSC06001

DSC06007
11

Karakoram_2018_007

DSC_072820180715_311
12DSC06023

DSC06026
13

DSC08590

DSC_074320280715_326
14Karakoram_2018_010

Karakoram_2018_012
15DSC08599

20180716_093140
16

20180716_111536

20180716_122845
17

Karakoram_2018_015
18DSC06805

20180716144843

19

DSC06088

Karakoram_2018_021
20

DSC_089520180720_478

DSC_08992018720_482
21

DSC06129

DSC_092920180720_512
22

DSC_094620180721_529

DSC_095820180721_541
23

DSC_097920180721_562

DSC_102220180721_605
24

DSC08716

DSC0874025

DSC08744

26

MASAYUKI KITAMURA
The Mekong River–Descents and Explorations of Headwaters
Translation: Tamotsu (Tom) Nakamura. Photo Gallery follows the text.

1

Part 1 - The first descents
A history of the first descent of the Mekong River basin began with a record of the Earth Science Expedition
led by Pete Winn, USA. A party of Pete Winn first descended the Yanbi River, a tributary of the MekongRiver in Yunnan Province, to Man Wan in 1994.
The Earth Science Expedition (hereinafter described as ESE) has extensively been exploring untrodden
rivers and challenging first descents in west China under the leadership of a most potential member, PeteWinn. He is a geologist and also an expert of river rafting with years of experiences as a river guide in the
Colorado River and other rivers. Pete and his colleagues planned and prepared descents in China since
1980s. For the purpose, in the beginning they chose a Chinese partner, The Center for International
Science Exchanges, China Academy of Sciences (hereinafter described as CISE).
Even nowadays the same situation remains as before. Because of bureaucracy of Chinese administrationin 1980s and 1990s, considerable amount of money had to be paid and much energy was spent for obtaining
a permit for river descent in China as in case of a climbing permit for mountains. The reason is that theupper streams of the Asian great rivers such as Yangtze, Mekong and Salween flow through remoteborderlands of Tibet which are not opened to foreigners. Presumably, therefore, ESE first attempted ariver in Yunnan which was comparatively easy for access and required less permit fee. The highlight of thefirst descent is a moment to enter unknown and raging rapids where “how treacherous and dangerous” isunforeseeable. The thrilling excitement would strongly attract those who challenge the descent. Once thedescent starts, it is impossible to return on the way. A blind curve of deep gorge where no scout can bemade is particularly dreadful.
The most important items for planning are detailed topographical maps. The best one is a topographicalmap of 1:100,000 made by the mapping department of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (hereinafter
described as PLA map).

However, they are strictly confidential to foreigners. Therefore, we availed

ourselves of TPC 1:500,000 maps (USA Defense Mapping Agency) and 1: 1,500,000 geographical maps before
the Russian topographical maps 1:200,000 made in 1970s appeared in the market in 1995. Currently
Google Earth and Google maps are helpful and accumulated information kept from Google on the data baseof the similar type of rivers suggests and gives us a hint as to possibility and location of rapids.

Section 1 – from the Headwaters to Qamdo(Qinghai Province to Tibetan Autonomous Region)
1. In September 1999, a joint party led by Masayuki Kitamura from Tokyo University of Agriculture(hereinafter described as TUA) and China Sciences International Travel Service, Chinese Academy of
Sciences (hereinafter described as CSITS) succeeded in the first descent from Yeyonsongdou 4800m in the
headwaters, the true source of the Mekong, to Qamdo 3200m by inflatable kayak and 4.8m rafting boat in 19
days. Distance of the descent was 560km and height difference was 1600m respectively.
2. ESE/CISE led by Pete Winn made the second descent from Yeyonsongdou to Zadoi only one day later.
The both parties had no prior communication between them. Pete’s party discovered a 7m high water fallin the uppermost Mekong at a point 50km upstream from Zadoi (N33 03 30, E95 04 08). The American2named “Snow Leopard Fall” for this fall as they saw the animal there. TUA/CSITS discovered 12m highJatarungga fall, the second highest fall in the Mekong, in the downstream from Nangchen (N33 07 20, E96
36 23).
3. In 2003, a Russian team, Moscow Institute of Technology led by Alexander Selvachev first descended
about 250km of Dze Qu, a largest tributary to Za Qu by a 5m cataraft. They reached Qamdo continuing thedescent of the Za Qu after the confluence.
4.

In 2004, Mekong First Descent Project (hereinafter described as MFDP) led by Michael O’shea

descended the whole section upstream of Zadoi (third descent).
5. In 2005, a Japanese party of Yoshiharu Sekino and TV crew descended 150km from Yeyongsongdou by
inflatable kayaks.

Section 2 – From Qamdo to Yanjing(Southern Tibetan Autonomous Region to the border with Yunnan Province)
1. In April 2004, a joint expedition of four countries made the first descent of Section from Qamdo to
Yanjing. The party comprised of the following team of 13 members:
USA----------ESE led by Pete Winn
Australia---ESE, Ralf Buckly
China--------China Scientific Exploration Association led by Liu Li
Japan--------TUA led by Masayuki Kitamura
This section is a most difficult part in the Mekong. In many places the river forms deep and formidable
gorges, where it is scarcely possible to find an escape route. The Grade is Class V +. The original plan
was finally reach Yanjing. But they encountered continuous rapids, more fierce than expected, near Xilong
2900m at about 136km downstream from Qamdo (N30 20.625 E97 46.835) and the plan was forcibly
abandoned.
2. In 2004, MFDP led by Michael O’shea completed the first descent of this section to Yanjing by kayak.
3. In 2008, The Last Descent led by Travis Winn descended the same section by kayak. Travis joined the2004 joint expedition. He is a son of Pete Winn. Based on descriptions by MFDF, the 2008 team is notconvinced that O'shea kayaked this section of river.

Section 3 – From Yanjing to near Dali
(Tibetan Autonomous Region to Yunnan Province)
This section is easy to access as there is a vehicle road from Yanjing to Yong Bao Bridge (near Dali) along the
Mekong River though the road is partly away from the river. There is a famous hot springs resort on theriver bank in Yanjing. A road from Yanjing to Deqen is the Yunnan-Tibet Highway and many tourists visit
Deqen to have a magnificent view of Meili Snow Mountains. The river Grade is mainly Class III – IV andthis part must be the best section for commercial rafting.

3

1. In October 2002, TUA led by Masayuki Kitamura made the first descent from the border 2154m of
Tibetan Autonomous Region and Yunnan Province to Baijixun 1678m by4.8m cataraft and rafting boat.
Distance of descent was 230km and height difference was 600m respectively. They made long and shortportages eight times en route. They could successfully pass through the first half of “Moon Gorge”, which isone of the narrowest gorges in the Mekong and now a sightseeing spot because of its breathtaking landscapeof natural wonder, but they had to make a portage for the remaining second half.
2. In December 2002, an American party of river guides led by Jim Norton made the complete descent of
this section.
3. In 2004, MFDP led by Michael O’Shea made the first descent from Baijixun 1678m to Yong Bao Bridge
1255m by kayak. Distance of descent was 265km and height difference was 423m respectively.
4. In 2005, Mt Sobek led by Jim Norton, a commercial expedition company, organized a tour.
5. In 2005, TUA led by Masayuki Kitamura descended the same part as above from Baijixun to Yong Bao
Bridge.

Section 4 – From near Dali to the Border(Southwest part of Yunnan Provice)
There is no vehicle road along the downstream from Yong Ping (west of Dali) in the southwest part of
Yunnan Province. Therefore, Take-in and Take-out points are bridges or towns. In this section many
dams have been being constructed in the main stream of the Mekong River. The dam first constructed is
Man Wan Dam.
From Yong Bao Bridge to Man Wan:
1. In October 1995, ESE and CISE made the first descent from Yong Bao Bridge to Man Wan by two 4.8m
catarafts, a two men paddle cataraft and two kayaks. This section has rapids of four Grade Class V andmany Grade Class III – IV located in the upstream of Jihong (Rainbow) Bridge, an oldest iron-bridge in
China, which is told to have been crossed by Marco Polo. These Class V rapids were formed by a hugelandslide in 1988 (or 1986?) delete - date known from other sources). Local people call these rapids as
Mahuangou (means leech channel), but Pete Winn named as Dragon Teeth Rapids that is one of the most
famous rapids in the Mekong River.
2. In 2004, MFDP made descent led by Michael O’shea.
3. In 2005, TUA made descent led by Masayuki Kitamura.
4. In 2006, The Last Descent made descent led by Travis Winn to Xiao Wan.
From Man Wan Dam to Jinggu-Lincang Bridge (Jinlinqiao)
1. In April – May, 1997, ESE/CISE led by Pete Winn made the first ascent of this section. They are theonly party to have descended this part before Dachaoshan Dam was constructed in 2001.
2. In 2004, MFDP made descent led by Michael O’shea.
3. In 2005, TUA made descent led by Masayuki Kitamura
4

From Jinggu-Lincang Bridge to a local port (N23 03 45, E100 08 41)
1. In 2004, MFDP led be Michael O’shea made the first descent of this section. They met three rapids ofGrade Class V + en route.
2. In 2005, TUA made descent led by Masayuki Kitamura

Chinese Rafters and Kayakers
Reports on the first descents of the Yangtze River (Chang Jiang) and Yellow River (Huang He) made by
Chinese in 1980s were published in Chinese. Since no records on descent of the Mekong River by Chinese
were found, research was made to investigate the fact about the Chinese accomplishments. Questions andenquiries were sent to Chinese rafters, explorers and Chinese Academy of Science. With the result, certain
reliable records were gathered.
Notable information that two Chinese rafters had already attempted on descent of the Mekong River inJune of 1987 became available. One of them is Tai Su Bo who joined the TUA expedition to north Yunnan
in 2002 and the other is Song Yipin who was a member of the international team in 2004. They took in at
Man Wan using a bamboo raft of 2m x 9m size made by local villagers. They descended for three days but
their bamboo raft was broken at large rapids a bit upstream of Jinggu-Lincang Bridge and saved swimming
to the river bank. The rapids are presumed to be “No Exit Rabbit” of Grade Class V. Regretfully no photos
as evidence remained, but their explanations, severally reported, are considered to be trusted.
Song Yipin who operates a rafting company is reported to have made the following three descents of the
Mekong before the above attempt by bamboo raft.
1. In 1990, his team descended 400km from Man Wan to Guanlei, a town in the border, by rubber boat inabout seven days. (Seven days would be too short. It must have taken more than seven days, (or thisaccount is not credible.)
2. 1n 1999, he planned and organized a tour to descend eight major rivers in Yunnan Province such as Nu
Jiang (Upper Salween), Jinsha Jiang (River of Golden Sand, Upper Yangtze) and Hong Jiang. No detailed
sections of the descents are unknown (Kita - he may have planned this but did not complete them).
3. In November 2001, a Chinese team of four members including Song Yiping made a descent from Yanjing
of southeast Tibet to Gongguoqiao in west Yunnan by China-made rubber boat in 10 days. But their record
was rather ambiguous in many parts. Song Yiping has not published any official report on his expeditions.
(Kita, my Chinese friends do not believe he did this).
As for the tributaries, in August of 1997, a Chinese rafting team led by Na Ming Hui descended the Xiao Hei
He in southwest Yunnan by paddle raft carrying eight persons. In 1998, they also descended the Zhu Jiang
which is the largest river in southern Yunnan.

In October, 2006, Na Ming Hui and Wang Dong Li

descended the Wei Yuan Jiang near Puer, a famous place for Chinese tea “Pu’ercha”.

5It is regrettable that many of Chinese rafters don’t write records and consequently they publish no reports of
their expeditions. In future when their detailed records were issued, a chronicle of the first descents would
have to be re-written

Part 2 – Explorations of Headwaters and True Source
A brief history of the exploration―1866 to 1894
After the death of Henri Mouhot, a discoverer of Angkor Wat, who had first led a French expedition to theUpper Mekong in 1866, Doudart de Lagree of French Navy took over Mouhot’s post. The newly appointed
leader crossed the border to Yunnan Province of China and further continued their march northeastward to
the Upper Yangtze on the way to head for Tali Fu together with Francis Garnier, a famous explorer ofNorthwest Yunnan. The same tragedy fell on Lagree too. He died of a disease at Hui-tse in 1868, while
Garnier could arrive at Tali Fu being helped by a missionary, M. Leiguilcher.
1868 was a notable year for the chronicle. In this year no less than three attempts from three points weremade to penetrate the obscurities of the unknown region. One was by Lagree’s party which had started
from Saigon; a second was by Mr. T.T. Cooper from Sichuan to East Tibet; the third by an English party of
Major Sladen from Bhamo (Burma) on the Irrawaddy River. A great effort of the Lagree’s expedition had
been the exploration of the Mekong, which they ascended and surveyed from the delta, as far as a point oflatitude 22°00’. From there they traveled through Southern Yunnan and reached the provincial capital,
Yunnan Fu (Kunming) at the end of 1867, the first time in my knowledge (this is optional) that any
European traveler (not being a missionary priest) since Marco Polo visited in 1283.
In July 1890, the French Government entrusted Dutreuil de Rhins, who had been a distinguished explorer
to Congo, Indo-China and Central Asia as well, with a scientific mission to Upper Asia. In October of thesame year Fernand Grenard was appointed to the mission. The small party calmly left Paris on February 19,
1891. It was a start of the long journey over three years across the Caucasus, Russian Turkestan, Chinese
Turkestan, Karakoram Pass to Ladakh, again back to Chinese Turkestan, Taklimakan Desert, Kun Lun andthen desolate Changtang high plateau towards Lhasa of their destination from the northwest. Threemonths of the uninviting hardship to struggle against a desolate wilderness of the northern Tibet brought
the travelers to Nam Co Lake (Tengri Nor), and here they were but a week’s march to Lhasa. After
Bonvalot, they were the first Europeans to touch the shores of the lake since the day of Huc. However, theofficials of the Lhasa deputation stopped them to further proceed to Lhasa. So they turned northward asBower, Littledale, Rockhill, and Bonvalot had to turn, and as far as Nakchu-ka they were following theusual Mongol pilgrim and caravan route bound for the Chinese frontier at Sining Fu (Xining).
In early March of 1894, from Nagchu de Rhins and Grenard left the direct pilgrim road and struck into thenorthern trade route between Lhasa and Batang, eastward. But subsequently they made a long detour toregain the direct route to Xining, on the way of which they traveled through the source of the Mekong River.
They explored a part of the upper Salween River and, having crossed Tangglha range, they found6

themselves on a marshy plateau crossed by the Dam Chu, the longest branch of the Yangtze River. They
made what was, from the geographical point of view, the most interesting discovery in their journey, but it
resulted in the misfortune of a fatal accident that de Rhins was brutally murdered by local Khambas near
Jyekundo.
On April 8 they entered from the Yangtze River basin into the Mekong River basin. Grenard described “Atnine o’clock in the morning, we had the satisfaction, in crossing the Zanag Lungmug La, to achieve one ofthe objects which we had set ourselves to accomplish. From this pass, which is 16,760 feet high, runs theLungmug Chu, westernmost of the source of the Mekong. The joys of discovery, which are enough to makeany good explorer forget the sufferings of a journey were increased two-fold for us by the fact that thishumble stream of water, now motionless under ice, but soon to flow over mountains and plains to French
territory, ---------------.“ in his book TIBET; The Country and Inhabitants (Hutchinson, London 1904). They
followed the Lungmug Chu down to Zanag (Current Chinese name: Zanaqu river), one of the two main
headwaters of the Upper Mekong and rather hastily congratulated themselves for having discovered thesource of the great river. The head of Lungmug Chu which, they claimed, they had reached first was notexactly the true source of the Mekong. (This part was written by Tamotsu Nakamura)

The Mekong River and Chinese attempts
The Mekong River originates in the Tangglha mountains of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and flows down from
north to south through Qinghai Province, Tibetan Autonomous Region, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand,
Cambodia and Vietnam to the South China Sea west of Ho Chi Minh City. The Mekong is the largest
international river in the Indo-China Peninsula. According to the latest definition of the Chinese Academyof Sciences, the name of the Mekong River varies in the four stages as under:(1) Mekong------------------- The lower stream in Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand andVietnam to the river mouth.
(2) Lancang Jiang-----------The middle and lower stream from Qamdo (Chamdo) to theborder between China and Myanmar/Laos.
(3) Za Qu (Dza Chu)---------The upper stream- the upper Mekong - from the river sources
to Qamdo.
(4) Zayaqu (Dza Kar)------The upper stream of the northernmost source to Ganasongdou
which is a confluence with Zanaqu.
(5) Zanaqu (Dza Nak)-----The upper stream of the westernmost source to Ganasongdou.
“Za” of Za Qu means rock piece, rock wall and rocky mountain in Tibetan language, and “Qu” means river.
In English “Rock River” is sometimes used for Za Qu. A specialist of The Heritage Conservator of Yushu
Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture explains that Za Qu means “river coming from rocky mountain or river
flowing through rocky mountain”. As Za Qu separates into many tributaries in the upstream of Zadoi,
Chinese geographers call this area as “Source Area”. In farther upstream Za Qu separates into two major
tributaries of Zayaqu (white rock river in Tibetan) and Zanaqu (black rock river).
7

The source of the Mekong River was first reported to the western countries on February
1993 issue of National Geographic (Vol. 183 No. 2) after the Peoples Republic of China had started.
Michael Yamashita and Thomas O’nell sent their article to the National Geographic. However, the source
which they reached was not geographical true source, but “Spiritual Source” that was worshiped by local
Tibetan people. They themselves recognized this and wrote to the said journal.
In those days, the geographical true source had not been yet discovered. The Chinese Academy of Sciences(hereinafter described as CAS) organized a professional task force “The Comprehensive Scientific
Expedition to the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet) Plateau” in 1973 – 1980 to make an overall scientific researchmainly in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. However, research was scarcely conducted in the headwaters
basin of the Mekong River. After new China was born, the only following research was made in Zadoi
County where there are the headwaters.
1964/67: The Northwest Plateau Institute of Biology, CAS, undertook the first research of grassland.
1969:

The provincial (Qinghai) government and Zadoi County government conducted survey of grassland.

1970:

The Northwest Plateau Institute of Biology surveyed grassland of Yushu Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture, Qinghai, to which Zadoi County belonged.

1986:

The government of Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai, conducted research of
agricultural resources in Zadoi County.

1987:

A Tibetan, Ga Ma Tu Ga, an officer of the Heritage Conservator of Yushu Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture, Qinghai, surveyed on foot from the headwaters of Zana Qu to the border.

In search of the true source – 1994
In summer of 1994, TUA and CSITS jointly organized a team “Expedition to the Headwaters” to discover thetrue geographical source of the Mekong River. Before the expedition started, a joint partner Zhou Changjin
of the Commission for Integrated Survey of Natural Resources, CAS (hereinafter described as CISNR)
measured both the Zayaqu and Zanaqu on the PLA map 1: 100,000 in advance and estimated as follows.
Zayaqu---------River length: 93.3km and area of river basin: 2,560km2
Zanaqu---------River length: 91.7km and area of river basin: 1,983km2
The length of the two rivers was almost the same.

No significant difference was seen from thetopographical map. Therefore, flowing water volume must have a key factor for comparison of the tworivers. On September 2, 1994, the expedition team started a caravan from Moyun, the remotest village inthe upper Mekong. They measured flowing water volume of the two rivers on September 4. The result
was as follows.
Zayaqu---------Average current speed: 1.089m/sec Average water depth: 0.72m
Average water flow: 54.6m3/sec
8

Zanaqu---------Average current speed: 1.067m/sec Average water depth: 0.33m
Average water flow: 10.49m3/sec
This implied and proved that the Zayaqu was the main stream of the Mekong River, and they marched up
the Zayaqu. On September 12 they reached a terminus of glacier at 5160m (N33 42 41, E94 41 37) which
fed water to Lasagongma, the geographical source of the longest headwaters. They got to know, for the firsttime, the name of Lasagongma at the meeting with research workers of CAS after they had returned to
Beijing.
Also in 1994 before TUA party entered Moyun, a Japanese photographer, Kenji Aoyagi, had visited aspiritual source of Zanaqu called Zhanahuohuo Zhouchi.

Thereafter many Japanese photographers,

mountaineers and explorers have entered the source of the Menkong River.

Franco – British expedition
Coincidently in the same year when TUA and CSITS joint party reached the geographical source, theFranco-British expedition led by a Michel Peissel discovered a river source (N33 16 32, E93 52 56) 4795m at
Rupsa-La Pass, one of the headwaters of Zanaqu.

An explorer – Tibetologist Michel Peissel FRGS

accompanied by DR. Jaques Falck and the Hon. Sebastian Guinness reached the source on September 17,
1994. (Peissel’s book: The Barbarians – Discovery of the Source of the Mekong in Tibet, also a video: The

Source of The Mekong (Smithsonian Expeditions).
The Rup-sa Pass is on a saddle which links the Drug-di and Sag-ri ranges which frame the last 40km of thecourse of the Zaqu. The Rup-sa Pass marks the watershed between the Mekong and the Yangste Riversystem. The Royal Geographical Society (RGS) recognized Peissel’s expedition (The Geographical Journal,
Vol. 161, Part 2, page 235-236 The Record, July 1995). The RGS recognition caused confusion.
Over the past century a dozen expeditions failed to reach source of the Mekong. 1894 the French explorer
Dutireuil de Rhins was assassinated by Tibetan Khambas just two months after having erroneously
recorded the source of the Mekong to be that of the Lung-Mog (Lungmug of Grenard) river, a tributary on
the right bank of the Zanaqu. There is no other record or claim of the source having been reached by otherforeigners. Of the early explorers who traveled the region, Kozloff, Teichman and Rockhill never reached thesource.
The source of the Mekong is located in the very inner heartland of the highest and most inhospitable portionof the central Asian highlands, hundreds of kilometres from any settlement. The region was part of the
far-flung realm of the kings of Nangchen, the home of 200,000 Khamba nomads who still live today a life
very similar to that of their earliest ancestors. Nomadic mounted warriors, these Nangchen Khambas are
divided into 25 semi-independent tribes who ferociously opposed the Chinese takeover. (This part was
written by Tamotsu Nakamura)

9

Surveys and explorations in 1999
In 1999, the following two Chinese parties entered the headwaters to confirm and decide the true source ofthe Mekong River.
Dr. Liu Shaochuang (Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, CAS) party
With sponsorship and financial support of the CAS and other institutions they made survey of theheadwaters of the Mekiong making use of remote sensing and geographic information systems. Dr. Liu
arrived at Zadoi County on June 15, 1999 and surveyed Zhanahuohuo Zhouchi, Zanarigen of the Zanaquriver system and Zaxiqiwa, Jufu Shan, Lasagongma, etc. of the Zayaqu river system. Dr. Liu publishedreports such as “Interpretation of Headwaters of Lancang Jiang (Mekong) River by 3S Integration
Technique, p68 – 70, No. 2, 1999 GEOINFORMATION SCIENCE. His conclusion was as follows.
“The headwaters of Zayaqu are those of the Mekong River. The headwaters are in Jify Shan 5552m (N33
45 35, E94 41 12) which is on the boundary of Zhidoi County and Zadoi County.
Water supply source to the headwaters is one of snow basins in Zhidoi County. This source is located 6km
away from a glacier terminus (N33 42 39, E94 41 37) in the headwaters of Lasagongma, which many
surveyors recognize to be the headwaters of the Mekong. China People’s Daily of October 27, 2002 reported
that the overall river length of the Mekong measured by remote sensing is 4,909km and that of Lancang
Jiang in the Chinese territory is 2,198km”.
China Association for Scientific Expedition party (hereinafter described as CASE)
A team to quest for the headwaters was organized by seven members of CISNR, eight members from China
Central Television and other media companies, etc. Total members were 18. Zhou Changjin who joined
the 1994 TUA/CAS team was a potential member and played most important role in the expedition. This
team was financially supported by Dexiang Business Group of Tianjin Municipality (the team hereinafter
described as CASE/DBG). They worked hard to decide the true source and headwaters of the MekongRiver taking advantages of study and observation of water system, geological features, glaciers and GPS,GIS and remote sensing system.
Their extensive study and survey led to the conclusion that the Zayaqu was the true source of the Mekong
from a view point of river length, area of river basin and volume of flowing water, etc. and it originated at
Guozongmucha Shan 5514m of Lasagongma in Zaqing Cheng, Zadoi County, Yushu Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture, Qinghai Province, China. A glacier terminus of Guozongmucha Shan was located at 5224m(N33 42 31 and E94 41 44) in Lasagongma and glacier surface area was 0.67km2.

Which is the correct true source, after all?
Kitamura’s 1994 TUA/CSITS expedition recorded a location of the geographical source in Lasagongma as
10

N33 42 41 and E94 41 37 at 5160m, which is a little bit different from that of the above 1999 CASE/DBG
survey. A point decided by two parties for the true source is in a terminus of the same glacier as it isevident on the photos. Presumably one of the reasons of the difference is due to an accuracy of GPS (in five
years accuracy of GPS must be improved).

The other reason would be the difference of a point formeasurement. Glaciers in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau have been receding and wilting every year. A glacierterminus has been affected accordingly. If a location of glacier terminus had not been uniform, a point of
the measurement must have been changed.
In 2007, Kitamura raised this question to his old friend, Zhou Changjin, in Beijing. He replied frankly as
follows.
“As Mr. Kitamura points out, GPS and receding of glacier might explain the contradiction in records of thetwo expeditions in 1994 and 1999. For the record in 1999, however, Guan Zhihua, a deputy leader, used
GPS not in a glacier terminus but in a source of small stream flowing near the glacier. Therefore, a point of
his measurement was slightly away from the glacier terminus, although to my personal understanding, thelocation of the true source must be at the glacier terminus.”
The next question was the different conclusions between the two expeditions of Dr. Liu Shaochuang and
CASE/DBG in 1999. The main factor rested with difference in river length to the headwaters. Dr. Liu
measured river length of the two tributaries from confluence, Yeyonsongdou, to the headwaters, as follows.
1. Yeyonsongdou to Jify Shan: Guyong and Pudigao valleys----------------------------23.64km
2. Yeyonsongdou to Guozongmucha Shan (Lasagongma): Gaoshanguxi-------------21.5km
The above figure showed that river length of the headwaters to Jify Shan was longer by 2.1km than that of
the headwaters to Guozongmucha Shan. This was a base for Dr. Liu to conclude Jify Shan to be the true
source of the Mekong River.
On the other hand, Zhou Changjin group’s measurement was different from Dr. Liu, as follows.
1. Yeyonsongdou to Jify Shan: Guyong – Pudigao------------------------------------------21.6km
2. Yeyonsongdou to Guozongmucha Shan: Lasagongma – Gaoshanguxi------------22.57km
On the contrary to Dr. Liu’s survey, Zhou’s figure told the former was shorter by 0.97km than the latter.

Criteria for determination and Controversy
The both teams analyzed satellite imagery making of remote sensing technology, but no same figures wereobtained. Kitamura questioned the reason to Zhou Changjin, who responded that “time of photographingof satellite images and measurement system/method must have resulted in the difference.” Kitamura
further questioned to both of Zhou Changjin and Dr. Liu about the basis and criteria for their determinationof the [True Source].

11

1. Criteria of Zhou Changjin and CASE/DBG team: Overall study on river length, flowing water volume,area of river basin and river flowing direction, etc. led to the determination of the true source.
2. Criteria of Dr. Liu, an expert of remote sensing: Only river length was taken into consideration.
Dr. Liu explained his view as a scientist. “The reason why he applied only river length for determining thetrue source was that accuracy of the satellite imagery has improved prominently. A decade ago it wasdifficult to measure river length exactly, and therefore they must take into account such factors as flowing
water volume and area of river basin for the determination. Now as we can measure accurate river length,
we should apply only river length. I insist on [length], as I am an expert of survey work and mapping.”
He further responded to Kitamura’s question. “Errors of the current remote sensing are about 5/1,000, thatis to say, 3 – 5km for 1,000km. An error of the total river length 6,300km of Chang Jiang (the Yangtze
River) would be 15 – 20km and in case of the 4049m Mekong River an error would be 5 – 10km. Errors are
attributed to software, mode and system of analysis, time of photographing and photographer skill.”
A monograph of Dr. Liu’s work including field research in 1999 and 2002 was published on the following
journals in English.
1) Pinpointing Source of Mekong and Measuring its Length through Analysis of Satellite Imagery and Field
Investigations, Geo-spatial Information Science 10 (1): 51-56.
2) A journal of Mekong River Commission, Catch and Culture Volume 13, No. 1.
Kitamura had an interview also with Tao Baoxiang, who was a key person to have established theconservation area of the sources of three rivers; Chang Jiang (Yangtze), Lancang Jiang (Mekong) and Huang
He (Yellow River). He was a deputy leader of the CASE/DBG expedition in 1994 and joined in many
expeditions. He formerly belonged to Commission for Integrated Survey of Natural Resources, CAS and atpresent he is working in CISE.
Tao Baoxing mentioned “Guozongmucha Shan is a name of this mountain called by local Tibetan. Name in
Chinese letter was applied and appeared on the map after the 1999 expedition. The state mapping agency
and local government jointly discuss and then decide name of place in China. Guozongmucha Shan was
officially named after such go-through procedure and formality. This name will often appear on the map
from now on. Regarding the true source of the Mekong, many scientists recognized Guozongmucha Shanas the true source.
Overall judgments are essential for taking any decision on an important issue. Glaciers of our true sourceof the Mekong, Guozongmucha Shan, are located in the water system of the Mekong River. On the contrary,almost all glaciers of Dr. Liu’s true source, Jify Shan, belong to the water system of Chang Jiang (Yangtze)
and only some of them cross the watershed to the Mekong side. From this view point, specialists of water
system geography are negative for the true source of Jify Shan. Since these glaciers are of small surface
area, they would be soon wilted and faded out because of global warming.”

12

If a monograph on the true source, Guozongmucha Shan, being authorized by the Chinese Government had
been written in English and dispatched to the international institutions such as the Mekong River
Commission for the Mekong, Guozongmucha Shan would have been widely recognized as the true
headwaters in foreign countries. It is regrettable that information solely on Jify Shan was sent abroad in
English and Jify Shan became known as the true source of the Mekong.

Parties having reached the headwaters after 1999
Many adventurers and explorers had an eye on the headwaters of Zayaqu even after 1999. The new comers
recorded new discoveries. The previous parties started their caravans from Moyun in Zanaqu, a remotest
town in the upper Mekong. But in August 2003, John Pilkington from United Kingdom made an approach
via Zaqen to the upper stream passing newly finished road, and afterwards this route has been being used
for access to the headwaters.
John Pilkington visited two headwaters, Jify Shan and Guozongmucha Shan and found some mistakes in
the names given by the previous expeditions in 1994 and 1999. He pointed out that a creek [Lasagongma]
which was named by Chinese researchers according to local herdsmen must be [Lasaawuma] and[Lasagongma] was a tributary coming down from the east face of Jify Shan.

However, the PLA

topographical map of 1:100,000 describes [Lasagongma] for [Lasawuma]. Therefore, no amendment of thename will be paid an attention for the time being.
In April 2004, two groups entered Guozongmucha Shan. One was Team Kiwi-SPARK Hillary Expedition
led by Rosalind Wood from New Zealand to descend from the headwaters to Indo-China Sea on foot and by
mountain bikes and rafting. The other was a team of Mekong First Descent led Michael O’shea from
Australia to trace from the headwaters to Indo-China Sea by kayaks. In the same year, a mountaineering
party led by Shinichi Abe from Niigata Mountaineering Federation of Japan made the first ascent of
Qiajajima I 5930m on July 31. This peak was the highest unclimbed peak in the headwaters of the
Mekong.
In August 2006, Yoshiharu Sekino, a Japanese explorer accompanied by TV crews made an attempt on
descending from the headwaters to the sea on foot, by mountain bikes and canoes, etc. They stood atop thesummit 5514m of Guozongmucha Shan above a glacier of Lasagongma at 11:30am on August 23 anddescended a part of Za Qu.

The last challenge to the true source
In May 2007, China Exploration and Research Society, Hong Kong, led by Wang How Man sent their team tolocate and determine the true source, whether Guozongmucha Shan or Jify Shan. Prior to the departure,by using remote sensing technology Martin Ruzek, an earth system scientist from USA, measured the river
length of both tributaries to the headwaters of Guozongmucha Shan and Jify Shan, which had remained a13most controversial issue on the true source of the Mekong. A record of new measurement of the river
length was as follow.
First record
1. Yeyonsongdou to Jify Shan: Guyong – Pudigao -----------------------------------------19.39km
2. Yeyonsongdou to Guozongmucha Shan: Lasagongma – Gaoshanguxi-------------21.7km
This record disproved Dr. Liu’s conclusion as it showed that the river length to Guozongmuha Shan was
longer by 2.31km than that to Jify (Jifu) Shan.
Carrying the above record for reference, they reached the headwaters of Guozongmucha Shan.

Afterfinishing the expedition, Martin Ruzek again measured the location making use of higher resolution
satellite image, as follws.
Second record
1. Yeyonsongdou to Jify Shan: Guyong – Pudigao------------------------------------------22.49km
2. Yeyonsongdou to Guozongmucha Shan: Lasagongma – Gaoshanguxi------------21.83km
On the contrary to the first record, the river length to the headwaters of Guozongmucha was shorter by
0.66km than that to Jify Shan. This second measurement proved Dr. Liu’s conclusion.
Difference in measurement appeared because the higher resolution of satellite imagery made it possible tosee more details of many Q-shaped meandering small streams from Yeyonzongdou to Jify San: Guyon –Pudigao, which resulted in counting the longer river length.

On the other hand, river streams from

Yeyonsongduo to Guozongmucha Shan: Lasagongma – Gaoshanzuxi had less meandering, and the second
record remained the same as the first record. According to their observation streams from Yeyonsongdou to
Guozongmucha had more flowing water volume, was wider and straight. Streams from Yeyonsongdou to
Jify Shan had less flowing water volume and was meandering.
In general, a river incline becomes the smaller and flowing water volume is the less, river would be thelonger as its stream becomes the more meandering. Therefore, to simply apply only river length for criteria
to determine the true river source would hardly be accepted. In 2009, China Exploration and ResearchSociety has a plan to send again an expedition for further investigation.

Acknowledgment
I would like to express my foremost thanks Pete Winn (USA), Dr. Martin Ruzek (USA), Michael O’shea(Australia), Dr. Kaaren Mathias (New Zealand), Tao Baoxiang (China), Zhou Changjin (China), Dr.Liu
Shaochuang (China), Na Ming Hui (China), Wang How Man (Hong Kong), John Pilkington (United
14Kingdom), Ian Walker (United Kingdom), Alexander Selvachev (Russia), Tamotsu Nakamura (Japan) for
supporting my expeditions, providing information and images collection, and helping enhancement of thisarticle. .

Reference on the Japanese Alpine News
1. Vol. 1 October 2001 Masayuki Kitamura Discovery & First Descent of Mekong

Headwaters
2. Vol. 2 April 2002 Pete Winn Final Determination of the Source of the Mekong River
3. Vol. 3 May 2003 Masayuki Kitamura First Descent of the Upper Mekong River
4. Vol. 6 May 2005 Masayuki Kitamura and Pete Winn First Descent of the MekongRiver in Tibet
Ryoichi Matsuzaka The Source of the Mekong – Remotest East

Tibet (first ascent of Qiajajima 5930m)
5. Vol. 7 May 2006 Masayuki Kitamura The Descent of the Mekong River
Map on the opening page: from “East of the Himalaya: Mountain Peaks Map” by Tamotsu Nakamura

Photo Gallery

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26