The Relative Hills of Britain - Mountains, Munros and Marilyns

A listing of all the ‘Marilyns’, i.e. all the hills that are relatively high compared to the surrounding land, with a drop of 150 metres or more on all sides. An invaluable reference work for all walkers, this book contains a fascinating collection of not too serious facts and figures. Illustrated with very clear maps.

There’s not much doubt that Britain is not a particularly mountainous country. Although the Hackenthorpe Book of Lies maintains that the highest point in the world is only eight feet, most sources of information agree that Mount Everest is over 29000 feet high, with Ben Nevis only 4400 feet. By global standards Britain’s mountains are quite insignificant. Many other countries not only have higher mountains, they also have roads, railways, hotels, restaurants, towns and even capital cities that are far higher than any mountain in Britain.

Height isn’t everything though. British hills and mountains have many other qualities, which is one reason why there is a long tradition of writing about them and making lists of the highest ones. These lists have been based on the assumption that hills must be a certain height above sea level - usually at least 2000 feet.

This book takes a different approach. It concentrates on hills that are relatively high, compared to the surrounding area, rather than compared to sea level. The main feature of the book is a comprehensive list of every hill in Britain that is at least 500 feet (roughly 150 metres) higher than the land around it. In practice this means at least 500 feet above sea level, as none of these hills start below sea level. Five hundred feet is a completely arbitrary figure of course, just as arbitrary as 2000 or 3000 feet, but I will make some attempt to justify it. To do this requires a brief summary of the existing literature.

In the beginning there was Sir Hugh Munro. He saw that there were lots of mountains in Scotland over 3000 feet high, he saw that they were good, and he set about compiling a list of them. No-one seems to known why he chose 3000 feet, but no-one questions his choice. Most hill walkers are well aware of the result - a book of Munro’s Tables that has evolved through several editions. This has led to the increasingly popular sport of Munro-bagging, which involves attempting to climb all the 277 separate mountains over 3000 feet that are listed in Munro’s Tables, and are commonly known as ‘Munros’. This can be a highly addictive pursuit.

Many of us who enjoy hill walking for its own sake find that the enjoyment of walking is enhanced by having a list to help guide where we go and a long-term target to achieve. There are however a number of reasons why Munro’s tables are not satisfactory as a list of British hills:

• Munro ignored England and Wales.
• Munro did not define what criteria he used for including a hill on his list. He divided the summits into two categories - separate mountains and mere ‘tops’ - but did not define either.
• Munro’s tables have been revised several times since they were first published. Some revisions have simply reflected more accurate and up-to-date maps, but some appear to be arbitrary modifications to the original list.
• There are many fine hills in Scotland, England and Wales that are less than 3000 feet high.

Next on the scene was J.Rooke Corbett (the fourth person to complete the ascent of all the Munros), who took some of these points into account by compiling a list of all the Scottish mountains between 2500 and 3000 feet high that have a drop of at least 500 feet on all sides. This list is a lot less fun than Munro’s, as it leave no scope for arguments about which summits should be promoted to separate mountain status or relegated to being only ‘tops.’ Corbett’s list was passed on to the editors of Munro’s Tables after his death, and there is no record of why he chose 500 feet as the amount required to separate one hill from another. Like Munro, Corbett was concerned only with Scotland.

There are very few summits over 3000 feet high in England and Wales (none at all in Southern Scotland), and relatively few over 2500 feet, and so the subsequent list compilers had to include hills as low as 2000 feet in order to produce worthwhile lists. There have been various efforts published in recent years.

• Percy Donald compiled a list of all the hills over 2000 feet in Southern Scotland that have a drop of one hundred feet on all sides, together with several further tops that have a drop of between fifty and one hundred feet. This list is also published in the book of Munro’s Tables.
• George Bridge published a book listing all the summits of England and Wales over 2000 feet high, using a formula based on a combination of height difference and distance apart to decide which summits to include. This list was published in 1973, based on one-inch-to-the-mile maps. Recent maps show that it is now well out of date.
• More recently John and Anne Nuttall have produced the two-volume comprehensive Mountains of England and Wales (Vol 1:Wales, Vol 2: England). These books list summits over 2000 feet (610m) that have a drop of fifty feet (fifteen metres) on all sides, with walking routes to cover them all.
• Terry Marsh has produced guides to the mountains of Wales, the Lake District and the Pennines that are over 600 metres high (about 1968 feet). These are useful as guidebooks, but the lists of summits are not very satisfactory as they are not strictly defined - most of them have at least thirty metres (one hundred feet) drop on all sides, but Marsh includes numerous other summits of ‘topographical merit’, which is an arbitrary and subjective concept.
• A small booklet published by Chris Buxton and Gwyn Lewis in 1986 lists all the summits in England and Wales over 2000 feet high with a minimum of only ten metres drop all round. This list is accurate, up-to-date and consistent, but includes a large number of insignificant summits of little intrinsic interest.
• Writers of guidebooks such as the renowned Alfred Wainwright and Walter Poucher have included lists of prominent and well-known summits based on no particular criteria. These are excellent and worthwhile guidebooks, but are not intended to be definitive references. A separate booklet listing all the summits named in Wainwright’s book was published by John Turner, but this is intended as an index and does not attempt to rationalise any of the details.
• In 1989 Eric Yeaman produced a handbook listing all the Scottish hills that have a drop of one hundred or more metres on all sides, together with others qualifying by distance instead of relative height. This is an interesting and up-to-date publication, though in my opinion it is awful to look at and appears complicated to use. It has several odd features, such as the listing of hills in reverse order (lowest first), the use of four-figure grid references, and the duplication of hills that happen to appear on more than one map. However, I cannot be too critical of it as it comes closest to this book in its concept and content. Apart from its poor presentation its main drawback is that, like all the other lists, it does not cover the whole country, as it ignores hills outside Scotland.

Why then do we need yet another list of British hills? Perhaps the honest answer is that no-one actually needs a new list, but a lot of walkers would probably like one. It is sometimes claimed that an attraction to lists is a sign of arrested personal development. If this is the case then I will try to cover up my own psychological deficiencies by suggesting a list(!) of reasons why publishing this new list of hills is eminently desirable:

• None of the existing publications are fully satisfactory or comprehensive. They use different definitions for hills and do not cover the whole of Britain.
• There has been a major change in recent years to the maps used by most walkers. In 1988 the Ordnance Survey completed publication of the Second Series of 1:50000 scale maps. Although publication of these maps began in the early 1970s, the changeover to metric contours at ten-metre intervals only occurred with the Second Series. The contouring on the new maps is much more detailed than on the older ones, and shows that much of the data in previous lists of hills is in need of revision.
• The encouragement of walkers to explore a wider range of hills in different regions of the country might relieve the pressure of feet on well-known summits in the popular areas. This may not prevent any erosion, but it might distribute it more evenly.
• The lower hills can provide more attractive walks in poor weather, especially when the higher summits are obscured by clouds. A low-level walk with views is usually more enjoyable than a high-level one in mist. The smaller hills are also ideal for filling in an odd hour or half day, or for exploring during busy holiday periods when the bigger hills and popular routes tend to get somewhat crowded.
• In mountainous areas the lesser hills often make excellent viewpoints for higher ones. For example, some walkers reckon that the finest view of the Cuillin Hills on Skye is from the top of Sgurr na Stri, which is a mere 1630 feet high.
• The listing of some hills in Southern England gives walkers unfortunate enough to live in that part of the country some constructive walking to do when they’re not away in the northern hills. At the same time the list convincingly demostrates how few hills there are in England and Wales compared to Scotland.
• The new list gives those fanatics who have completed all the Munros, Corbetts, Bridges, etc a renewed purpose in life. It also provides a good alternative, if used selectively, for those walkers getting too old to think of completing the Munros.

These are all good reasons for publishing a new list, yet there is another consideration that is possibly more important than any of them. It arises from the uncomfortable feeling that a lot of the minor summits which have appeared in previous lists are really a bit on the boring side. The more distinct hills usually provide enjoyable walks and good viewpoints, and it is very satisfying to plan and follow a long continuous route taking in as many tops as possible. But after walking an extra two or three miles just to stand on top of a flattish rounded hump that happens to be a few metres higher than the surrounding bog, then even the most obsessive of summit baggers begin to ask questions...