วีดีโอ

I find it quite amazing, that, all those people ( who go to the trouble of walking along the section of Wall between Walltown Nick and Carvoran ) many of them apparently wander past this little bit of the Wall, and have absolutely NO IDEA that it is there !!!..... This little 100 metre part of the Wall ( which I call " the Hockey stick " between the Milecastle 45 and the edge of the quarry ) is, I believe, potentially one of the most amazing bits still existing, and, if fully excavated, would be just as good as the more famous part of Walltown Crags... The great shame is that the quarry took away the 3 small Nicks up to Turret 45a ( which would have been the most spectacular part of the entire Wall ) and now, sadly only leaves us with FIVE of the " Nine Nicks of Thirlwall ", with the so-called Ninth Nick abruptly ending at the edge overlooking the Country Park...

I’ve just read Fortey’s Hidden Landscape and was curious about the Solway Firth which he says was “disappointing” when he first saw it; but this is a Designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and this is the place where half a billion years ago an ocean disappeared. This video was exactly what I needed. Your command of geologic terms ‘off the cuff’ is impressive. Thank you! Try asking TH-cam for info on the Solway Firth and you have to wade through hundreds of videos on a heavy metal song by Slipknot. Once again thank you. Obviously there is more here than meets the eye.

Really interesting talk, many thanks!

Amazing and very informative, thank you Gary. A real credit to the National Park

III. The LACK OF A MILLENIUM in written sources about the existence NEO-Romance speaker population in the territory of modern Romania. The Vlachs Neo-Latin (Romance speaking) peopulation, and the PROBLEM of the lack of any information about existence of neo-latin speakers in the territory of modern Romania/Transylvania for a MILLENIUM (1000 years) in contemporary chronicles. III/1st: Where did these neo-latino/ Romance speaker population hide so astonishingly long from the eyes of the chroniclers and church/state administrations of sorroundig countries? How is it possible, that nobody realized / mentioned this Latin-speaking communities for approx 1000 years adjacent to the Byzantine Empire? This is not somewhere in Sahara, in the jungle of Congo, or in the Siberian tundra… Slavs, Cumans, Jassic people were well recorded in the area by the chroniclers of sorrounding states and in their documents before the 13th century. III/2nd: There are no material proofs (cemetries or Vlach cultic places) which can support the Vlach (Romance speaking population) existence in present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the 13th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/Romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. III/3rd: The earliest Romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own Romanian history writing/chronicles, so the Romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (aka. fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc... III/4th: MENTION OF VLACHS (Romance speakers) before and after the 13th century, and their relatively QUICK TERRITORIAL SHIFT (migration) in the mirror of written sources: Vlachs of the mountains of the Balkan peninsula were recorded as the only Romance speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary (6th-13th century) written sources. Remember: All other Romance languages of Europe developed only in regions which had been under Roman rule for more than 500 years, and nothing suggests that Romanian was an exception. This is not surprising. Unlike the 160years short-term Roman presence on the territory of modern Romania, the direct Roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula. It's no wonder, that the Vlach neo-latin Romance speaker nomads were very frequently and exclusively mentioned on the Balkan peninsula by the early and high medieval sources. Remember: Only 160 years Roman rule in the hostile Dacia VERSUS the well established long 500+ years direct Roman rule on the Balkan peninsula. Before the 13th century Vlach people were very frequently mentioned in the history of Bulgaria (as one of its chief component of their realm!) but we do not have sources of settled neo- latino Romance speakers in present-day territory of Romania. However after the 13th century the mention of Vlachs became a huge rarity on Bulgarian and Serbian territories in the contemporary written sources. But what happened with the Vlachs of Bulgaria and Serbia that their mention became increasingly rare after the 13th century? There are numerous Serbian documents, dating from the end of the 12th century, mention Romanian shepherds in the mountainous region between the Drina and Morava rivers. Although, in modern times, Romanians no longer lived there, nor in the mountains of western Bulgaria, both regions have numerous toponyms attesting to their presence in the early Middle Ages. How interesting and suprising(!) , Finally since the 13th century a lot of records suddenly appeared about the existence o Vlachs in the territory of modern Romania.... It clearly shows for the posterior the migration of that Vlach Romance speaker nomad population to the North.

I. THE PROBLEMS WITH DACIANS AND the so-called "ROMANS"(???) in the theory: I/1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal. I/2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained. The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-Roman theory. Unlike in the case of other European Romance languages where even early written texts prove their development, like in the case of Italic languages or Hispanian languages or various Gallian (France) languages, there are no proofs for development of Dacian language into a neo-Latin Romance (Romanian) language. I/3rd: The Dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe (106 AD. - 271 AD.) , it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and Dacians remianed very hostile. The Roman presence in Dacia was characterized by frequent revolts of the local inhabitants, and the occupation did never achieve a complete control of the region since different Dacian tribes kept their independence in earthen fortifications that they built on mountain peaks, and others moved outside the imperial borders. Even Roman historians of the third century attest that the pugnacious Dacian people were hard to surrender and even women and children fought against the Roman legions. In such a background it is honestly very difficult to imagine a process of assimilation of any kind. That very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for a real Romanization process. I/4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people still tend to believe that they are true descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS. II. PROBLEMS OF THE GREAT MIGRATIONS PERIOD in the theory: II/1st: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of Dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Carpians, Gepids, Avars, Slavs, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 11th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. Don't forget, that these "migratory" peoples, each inhabiting the territory for more time than the Romans had held it. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /Romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Romance speaker Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.

In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherds of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. Their closest relatives are the romance speaking people of the Balkans, the Aromanians. Their closest genetic relatives are the Montenegrin people according to modern autosomal and full genome admixture researches. The irrational Daco-Roman continuity myth is nothing more than a typical "NATIVIST" (and autochonist) propaganda of the 18th century, and a fine example of the hardcore wishful thinking and wannabee-ism. Such nativist origin theories became very popular and extremely important during the dawn of early nationalism. Originally this theory was fabricated to serve as a so-called "justification" for similar territorial expansionist ambitions as the Lebensraum theory in the early 19th century German territories. Finally this religion-like wannabee theory became a compulsory curriculum in Romanian schools, and due to the indoctrination of Romanian children at young age, this national credo became the central core of modern Romanian identity since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej and Ceausescu. This chauvinist nativist propaganda was born and started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A political actvisit "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" strictly served and followed the Romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the Romanian state-supported daco-Romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_School The main purpose of Transylvanian School was to demand extra feudal privileges for the Romanian peasant population in the Habsburg ruled Transylvania. They dreamed about tax and duty extemption and abolish the serf status of their Vlach peasantry, thus they demanded the status of border guards for themselves. In their imagined scenario, only the Hungarian peasants would remain the taxpayers and serfs in Transylvania. The first idea was that Romanians have "PURE Latin" origin from Latium Central Italy, thus they are the true descendants of ancient Romans. Hence that movement was called later as the “Purists”. With this idea, the so-called "Purists" (Vlachs remained nomadic shepherds until the early modern period!) who wanted to create a highly civilized ethnic ancestry for themselves, as a weird kind of "psychological compensation" for their very long-lasting nomadic past and culture. Than the rival Dacian origin fantasy was developed too, as a counter theory of the above mentioned Latin Purist theory. This Dacian theory was invented to show the Romanians as the true anceint NATIVE population in the area, thus they truly deserve their "ancient" rights on that territory , like the very desired feudal privileges for Romanian peasants in Transylvania. Finally, the Daco-Roman continuity fantasy was also developed as the fusion and compromise of the two formerly rival theories. This fusionist Daco-Roman-continuity combo could provide for the Romanians both the "autochon" feeling and also the highly civilized Latin ancestors at the same time. No wonder, the fusionist Daco-Roman combo story emerged as the most popular and appealing theory to fabricate a national past for the Romanians. The full text is here: www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm