Mile High Roman Military Camp

The army of ancient Rome was afraid of nothing. They definitely had no fear of heights, because a 2,000-year-old Roman military camp has been discovered in the Swiss Alps, 7,000 feet above sea level.

Archaeologists continue to explore the history of the Roman army. They have unearthed a military camp—previously unknown—strategically positioned to have tactical views of the surrounding valleys and mountain passes.

They didn’t just find the ditches and a wall of the camp; they also found lead sling bullets that bore the stamp of the Roman 3^rd Legion.

Since 2021, a team has been researching the landscape between Cunter and Tiefencastel. Their focus was on a Roman battlefield in the Oberhalbstein Alps, in eastern Switzerland. But in the fall of 2023, they discovered a striking terrain structure in the Colm la Runga corridor, which is about 3,000 feet above the battlefield.

They investigated the site using a high-resolution digital terrain model and LIDAR data. A LADAR laser scans the ground and reveals even slight height differences in the terrain as a grayscale image. In this location, it revealed the profile of an artificial fortification.

Undisturbed for two millennia, 7,000 feet high in the Alps, this Roman military camp was fortified by three ditches and a wall with ramparts (protective barrier). It offers a view of four key valleys and a heavily traveled mountain passageway. It gave Roman soldiers a perfect view to spot any incoming enemies.

Researchers have found weapons and equipment belonging to Roman soldiers, including lead sling bullets and boot nails. Since the bullets bear the stamp of the 3^rd Legion, they give an obvious tie between the ancient battlefield and the camp above. Both the battlefield and the camp date to about 2,000 years ago.

The discovery helps track the advancement of Roman forces from Bergell over the Septimer Pass to the Tiefencastel area and then toward Chur and the Alpine Rhine Valley.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/archaeologists-found-an-ancient-roman-military-camp-hiding-7-000-feet-high-in-the-sky/ar-AA1Ph7wu?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=68ffc967a5534259acc6f97531fc42f4&ei=55

What Holds Up the Himalayas?

Scientists have discovered that a 100-year-old theory about Earth’s highest mountain range is wrong.

The Himalayas were formed when the Asian and Indian continents collided around 50 million years ago. Tibet was squeezed so hard it crumpled and shrank. Eventually, India slipped under the Eurasian tectonic plate, which doubled the thickness of Earth’s crust beneath the Himalayas and Tibet.

Until now, the theory has been that this extra-thick crust carries the weight of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas. In 1924, geologist Emile Argand published research showing the 2 crusts stacked on top of each other, stretching 45-50 miles (70-80 km) deep under Earth’s surface.

But researchers now say that rocks in the crust turn molten about 25 miles (40 km) down because of extreme temperatures. The lowermost layers become like yogurt, which won’t support a mountain.

New research says there is a piece of mantle sandwiched between the 2 crusts. The mantle is a layer that usually sits directly beneath the crust. Being denser than the crust, it doesn’t liquify at the same temperatures. The crust is buoyant, similar to an iceberg. It lifts higher the thicker it gets.

A computer simulation of the collision between the Asian and Indian continents showed that as the Indian crust began to liquify, blobs of it rose and attached to the base of the rigid outer layer. This means there is a rigid layer of mantle between the stacked crusts, which solidifies the structure beneath the Himalayas. While the 2 crusts give buoyancy to the region lifted, the mantle material provides mechanical strength.

Then the researchers compared their simulation with seismic data and information obtained from rocks. They found that the mantle sandwich matched previous evidence that Arnand’s theory couldn’t explain. Enigmatic observations are more easily explained with this model. This study presents strong evidence, but it is controversial because Arnaud’s theory has been widely adopted.

These results explain a number of geological oddities in the region. The scientists ran lots of simulations using different thicknesses for the layers, and they always got a bit of mantle sandwiched between the 2 crusts.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-geology-that-holds-up-the-himalayas-is-not-what-we-thought-scientists-discover/ar-AA1Ly8l6?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=58b796c6ff6143d886f6d7199af0640e&ei=51