“Rocky Peak Ridge” is a very strange name for a peak. After all, a peak and a ridge are not the same thing. The name becomes stranger still when you learn from the “High Peaks Trails” guide book that the first, prominent peak that you come to on the ridge(approaching from Bald Peak) is called “Rocky Peak”!
I’m guessing that this is what happened: “Rocky Peak” was the first thing ever named on this ridge. It was named, not because it was the highest point, but because of its prominent appearance. (It is perhaps the most interesting point on the trail, the only place on the entire ridge where you can spin in place and have a completely unobscured view in all directions.)
After this, the ridge on which Rocky Peak was located was referred to as “Rocky Peak Ridge”. Then someone said, well, we have to give a name to the high point of the ridge. Normally, a ridge and its peak would have the same name. But the name “Rocky Peak” was already taken for the lower peak. The logic then would have been to call it “Rocky Peak Ridge Peak”. That’s ridiculous, of course. But no sillier than calling the peak “Rocky Peak Ridge”, thereby making it impossible to distinguish between the peak and the ridge.
The peak should have simply been given a different name.
Does anyone know if my guess on the origin of the name is correct?
Incidentally, “Rocky Peak” is just over 4000 feet high, and would have qualified as a 46er (and a very grand one!), except that it does not have sufficient prominence relative to the “true peak” to be defined as a separate peak. It does illustrate the arbitrary nature of our naming conventions and our “peak lists”.
I’m guessing that this is what happened: “Rocky Peak” was the first thing ever named on this ridge. It was named, not because it was the highest point, but because of its prominent appearance. (It is perhaps the most interesting point on the trail, the only place on the entire ridge where you can spin in place and have a completely unobscured view in all directions.)
After this, the ridge on which Rocky Peak was located was referred to as “Rocky Peak Ridge”. Then someone said, well, we have to give a name to the high point of the ridge. Normally, a ridge and its peak would have the same name. But the name “Rocky Peak” was already taken for the lower peak. The logic then would have been to call it “Rocky Peak Ridge Peak”. That’s ridiculous, of course. But no sillier than calling the peak “Rocky Peak Ridge”, thereby making it impossible to distinguish between the peak and the ridge.
The peak should have simply been given a different name.
Does anyone know if my guess on the origin of the name is correct?
Incidentally, “Rocky Peak” is just over 4000 feet high, and would have qualified as a 46er (and a very grand one!), except that it does not have sufficient prominence relative to the “true peak” to be defined as a separate peak. It does illustrate the arbitrary nature of our naming conventions and our “peak lists”.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire