Take the 2-minute tour ×
Travel Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for road warriors and seasoned travelers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Climber Maximo Kausch claims there are 118 "6,000ers" in the Andes. And according to Peakbagger, 6,000 meter peaks are found only in the Andes, Central Asia (including the Himalaya, the Hindu Kush and other ranges), and Alaska, where there is just one 6,000er: Denali.

So how many 6,000 meter peaks are there in Asia? How many are there in the world?

share|improve this question
7  
A lot of it depends on what you define as a mountain, which is why they can be difficult. Are two peaks on the same crop the same mountain, or two? Some define it as being separated by 500m of prominence. I think you're going to need to be more specific on how we should define a mountain... –  Mark Mayo Sep 16 '13 at 2:43
2  
And where the Himilayas start and end is a concern too. Buni m is 6550, Istor-o-nal (68th highest at 7403) are both in Pakistan and generally considered part of the Hindu Kush region, rather than the Himilayas. –  Mark Mayo Sep 16 '13 at 2:45
1  
Hmm, also worth clarifying what you mean by peak - is it a mountain, or a 'peak' of a mountain (one mountain can have several peaks above x metres) –  Mark Mayo Sep 16 '13 at 5:39
3  
This question appears to be off-topic because it is purely about geography with no relevance to travel. –  Gilles Sep 16 '13 at 7:50
2  
I think it's an on-topic factoid because people do indeed travel to climb mountains and they want to know stuff like this. It could've been worded more travellishly but that wouldn't change the resulting correct answer facts. It may also be on-topic on outdoors.SE, if there was a geography.SE or climbing.SE it would be on-topic on those too. –  hippietrail Sep 16 '13 at 18:25

3 Answers 3

Many mountaineering agencies claim that there are 1310 peaks over 6000m in Nepal alone. Other agencies claim that there are thousands of such peaks in the world, meaning that no comprehensive list of peaks over 6000m probably exists. This makes sense, as peaks should intuitively follow some sort of power-law distribution, meaning that there should be much more peaks between 6000m and 7000m than between 7000m and 8000m.

Good sources are hard to find. A large part of the problem is that 6000m peaks are not really that significant in the Himalayas, where valleys can rise to over 5000m, and even passes can be over 6000m. To make the things worse, official Nepali records are generally not online. There is a list of 326 peaks in Nepal open for mountaineering, however, and most of the peaks seem to be over 6000m.

share|improve this answer
    
citation? Any links to back up your figures? :/ –  Mark Mayo Sep 16 '13 at 4:13
2  
@MarkMayo I couldn't find any sources I would really trust. I have updated the answer. –  Jouni Sirén Sep 16 '13 at 4:55

Wolfram Alpha gives:

  • 19 peaks above 8000m
  • 95 peaks between 7000m and 8000m.

One of its sources, Peakware finds:

  • 20 peaks above 8000m.
  • 99 peaks between 7000 and 8000m,
  • 151 peaks between 6000m and 7000m,

For Asia only, it finds 94 peaks between 6000m and 7000m, the peaks above 7000m are all in Asia.

share|improve this answer

Depending on your definition, Wikipedia has a list of mountains by elevation.

Certainly according to that, there are 6000ers outside of the Andes, Himalaya and Alaska - including peaks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Tibet (regions outside of the Himalaya).

Summary:

  • 14 peaks over 8000m.
  • 93 peaks between 7000 and 8000m (meaning 107 peaks above 7000m)
  • 75 peaks between 6000m and 7000m (meaning 184 peaks above 6000m)

and it continues to list most of the smaller mountains around the world, although I know some of the 1000mish mountains in NZ are missing in the list (eg Mt Hutt, Mt Herbert).

share|improve this answer
    
So, -184 world -118 Andes -1 Denali = 65 6,000ers in Asia? –  samthebrand Sep 16 '13 at 3:19
    
@SamtheBrand you'd have to count them by hand on that page to be sure, but assuming 118 is right, then, yes, that seems about right. –  Mark Mayo Sep 16 '13 at 3:21
1  
I don't think that figure is accurate, as Wikipedia's list is explicitly tagged as "incomplete". –  jpatokal Sep 16 '13 at 5:06
    
@jpatokal like I said, it certainly is missing some among the low heights, but odds are very good the >6k ones are accurate, as those tend to be the ones climbers care most about. –  Mark Mayo Sep 16 '13 at 5:38
4  
@MarkMayo - Perhaps climbers care more about peaks than about updating Wikipedia. –  mouviciel Sep 16 '13 at 7:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.