Nasser Ayash
Ever wonder when a hill becomes amountain? Well, it turns out that it isdifficult to answer. Lets take a quicklook at it, shall we?
To begin with, turning to thewe have thefollowing definition of a mountain: “alandmass1 that projects conspicuously2above its surroundings3 and is higherthan a hill”.
Maybe thecan do better? According to this dictionary,mountains are “a natural elevation4of the earth surface rising more or lessabruptly5 from the surrounding level andattaining6 an altitude7 which, relative tothe adjacent8 elevation, is impressive9or notable10”.
As you can see, the dictionaries areslightly less than helpful at describing thedifferences between a mountain and a hill.And, it turns out, science and countries areunhelpful either, coming up with many waysto define11 this in a specific case, thoughthere are some general things to consider.
Now, in all such cases, one of thecommon factors to consider is size. Tallenough, its a mountain and falling shortits a hill. This would make the problemsimple enough if thats really the onlything to consider: Find a threshold12 abovewhich you are atop a mountain and belowwhich you are on a hill.
This is exactly what many countriesused to do until the 1920s.
Moving on from size, another commonidea is that a hill is a smooth roundedmound13 of earth in the naturallandscapes14, often remaining unnamed. Amountain, on the other hand, must have asteep15 inclination16, and, of course, has aname. But this description is only suitablefor the extreme17 examples.
Thus, to make things a bit easier, in1936, Roderick Peattie, publisher of, believed mountainsshould be impressive, and they shouldhave individual character and play asymbolic role in the local area.
If that still sounds vague18 to you... well,it is. But surely, there must be some harderrules? The answeris... no, not precisely.
Until the 1920s, a mountain wasdefined as higher than 1,000 feet (304meters) than surrounding ground level inBritain. America followed the same ideauntil the 1970s.
Nowadays, however, as Mr. Peattiesuggested, local tradition plays a majorrole: Generally, a mountain should atleast have a height of 610 metres, but ifthe locals have always considered their hilla mountain, well, lets not make them angryjust for the sake of size. It is, after all, notalways about size, but reputation19. This isparticularly the case if it is a singleelevation in otherwise flat areas, sorelativity20 should also be considered.
Today, we still do not have an exactdefinition of “mountain” and “hill”.Instead, people try to follow some of theaforementioned few generally acceptedcharacteristics, again, thingslike, its characteristic inthe landscape, what dothe locals consider it,and so on.
你有沒有想过什么时候一座山丘能成为一座山岳?结果答案很复杂。让我们快速了解一下,怎么样?
首先,翻开《韦氏词典》,我们找到的山岳的定义为:“明显突出于周围环境且高于山丘的陆地”。
也许《牛津英语词典》可以做得更好?根据这部词典的说法,山岳是“地表自然的高地,或多或少地从周围的平地陡然上升,并达到一个相对于邻近高地而言令人印象深刻或引人注目的海拔高度”。
正如你所看到的,词典在描述山岳与山丘之间的区别方面稍显不足。事实证明,科学界以及国家(在这个方面)都同样束手无策。尽管需要考虑一些一般性的问题,但他们在具体的案例中提出了许多定义方法。
现在,在所有这些情况下,要考虑的常见因素之一是大小。足够高的,是山岳;不够高的,是山丘。如果这真的是唯一需要考虑的东西,这将使问题变得足够简单:找到一个界限,高于该界限,那你就是在山岳上,低于该界限,那你就在山丘上。
这正是许多国家在20 世纪20 年代以前所做的事情。
从大小来看,另一个常见的观点是,山丘是自然景观中一个光滑的圆形土丘,通常未被命名。另一方面,一座山岳必须有陡峭的斜坡。并且,当然,它还有一个名字。
但这一描述仅适用于极端例子。
因此,为了让事情更简单一点,1936 年,《山岳地理》的出版商罗德里克·皮蒂认为山岳应该令人印象深刻,并且它们应该具有个性,并在当地发挥象征性的作用。
如果你觉得这听起来还很模糊的话……嗯,确实是的。但肯定会有一些更严格的规则吧?答案是……不,不见得。
直到20 世纪20 年代,在英国,山岳被定义为高于周围地面1000 英尺(304 米)以上。直到20世纪70 年代,美国都遵循同样的原则。
然而如今,正如皮蒂先生所说,当地的传统起着重要作用:一般来说,一座山岳应该至少有610米的高度,但如果当地人一直认为他们的山丘是一座山岳,那么,我们别仅为了大小而激怒他们。
毕竟,这并不总是关乎大小,而是关乎声誉。如果是在平坦地区中的单个高地,情况尤其如此,因此也应考虑相对性。
今天,我们仍然没有“山岳”和“山丘”的确切定义。相反,人们试图遵循上述少数几个普遍接受的特征,比如景观特征、当地人对它的看法等等。
Notes
1. landmass 大陆
2. conspicuously 显著地;明显地
3. surrounding 周围环境
4. elevation 高度;海拔;高地;高处
5. abruptly 突然地;陡然
6. attain 实现;达到
7. altitude 海拔高度;高地
8. adjacent 邻近的;毗连的
9. impressive 给人印象深刻的
10. notable 显要的;值得注意的
11. define 给……下定义;解释
12. threshold 门槛;界;起始点
13. mound 土墩;小山丘;小山岗
14. landscape 风景;景色;形势
15. steep 陡峭的
16. inclination 斜坡;斜度
17. extreme 极度的;极端的
18. vague 不明确的;不清楚的;模糊的
19. reputation 名誉;名声
20. relativity 相对性