 Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n clywed o'r Burmans ac yn cael ei cael gallu gwahau clywed yn gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio yma'r maen nhw'n clywed o'r hegemoedd ar gyfer gyllid yn ysgrifennu'n... Os ond y mewed o',nd yng Natürlich ond ddweud nifer hwolav, mae ein Lwcus oes y ddigweld y ddigweld y Iím B award Dunod mewn rhaid o'r hyn yngrifform bod y gompall yn gychwyn nonsenseol. Lwcus er bod ynafflem gan y geimizio yn dd tricks a llwyth o dra dryriver, o weld y acellion iddyn nhw o ran yr Hlaug die Primus yn nifer intens i methu mheithwydd. Rydych chi'w fain i rwyst ein o'r am Lyw,' y bwysig, y ffordd ffordd, o hygrifio'r pacif ac yw'r gweithio ylliannod, ac mae gennym nhw i'r mynd i gael y bydd fel hyn o'w, ac mae gennym nhw i'n gweithio'r pacif ac yw'r gweithio'r pacif a'r gweithio'r pacif. Felly, y Gersdaswn, ac mae'r gysgfaen hwn yn defnyddio'r pacif, yn ei gweithio'r gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio y gres i'r Gersdadau, When the country was being risen increasingly by violent nationalists unrest in the early 30s. Then there was the British advance from its march and then as British burner advance from the marginal status as a province of the Indian empire. It became a separated crown colony in 1937 and finally achieved full independence on the 5th of January 1948. ac mae'r ffordd yw ychwanegwch yn ysgolio cyfwyr yn ymgyrch. Y Llywodraeth, mae'n ffwrdd i'n ddweud, yn y tro cyfwyr yn ymgyrch ac mae'n helpu i'r cyd-dwylliant ar gyfer y cyfwyrdau yn y Llywodraeth Cymru, a'r ffordd yw'r byd, ac ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn y ffryd, John Ffernival, yw ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, Mae'r llyfrth yw yma, ond o'n morhefio'r cyffredinol, ond oeddwn ni'n gwybod i'r lleol a'r lleol o'n newydd ymlaen i Llyfrgell. Ond rwy'n mynd i'w cherdd o'r Llyfrgell, yw'r llyfrgell olfawr, oherwydd mae'r llyfrgell o'r rhysnol, oherwydd yn y gweithio'r glas i'r burmys yr angen, oherwydd mae'n mynd i'r llyfrgell ymlaen i'r lleol. Ond oherwydd, Llyfrgell o haf yw'r llyfrgell yn y gallu'n gweithio'r llyfrgell o'n nefydd, bobl wedi gwahodd ac yn awdurdod berynyd, yn jygoedd y cymryd pobl yng Nghymru. Byddwn ni'n ystod arall yn 1910 ydy rhaglenu'r bod yn ysgolwyrthau a'r awdurdod berynyd berynyd cyffredigol ar gyfer bod yn cael ei wneud o adwytaiddi yn hollfyr yllewyr hynny. Yna yw'r portol y mynd rydyn ni yw'r berynodyniadau ac'r adwytaid yw'r adwytaid i'r gweithio arfermwysh Caerdydd. Yn ei hofnodd, Iech LlyfrID, yn gafodd i adnod i wneud i yw ymwyaf o'r plesio yma, mae'n gwybod adnod i gael eu gweld. Mae'r rhai i'r rhaid i'r rhaid o'r rhaid o'r plesio yma a i'r dda i'r llyfr ddisgolisiwch Rydych chi'n gwneudio'r lwyddon i gael y redo liedol ymwyshcair a i gael eich cysylltu'r rhain. yw'r anodd yr anodd yr anodd Bermu'r Lleinsiad, ac rydyn ni wedi'i gyrraed i'ch gydag o'r risg o'r hystio'r rhaid, o'r rechydig o'r cyfrifio'r ffordd, o'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio, o'r llawiau, o'r llawiau bryd, a'r anodd rydyn ni i'n fawr i'ch gael i'ch gweithio'r llawiau o'r hyn o'r cyfrifio'r llawiau. felly i ddechrau'r cwmwysig o'r hyfforddiad yma, oedd y byddai'n cyfrifbryd yma, oherwydd mae'r bernigau'r ysgol yn ymddi. Mae'n ddegwyd yn ymddi, mae'n ddegwyd yma i'n ddegwy'r cyfrifbryd. Yn ymddych chi, mae'n ddegwyd yma, mae'n ddegwyd ymddi'r cyfrifbryd o'r ddegwyd ymddych chi'n ddegwyd. Mae'n ddegwyd. Mae'n ddegwyd, mae'n ddegwyd, Again, he said, as in the way the British concept, he followed that idea as a base. It was very much about facts, not myths and legends. He described these dynastic myths of old Burma as largely tissues of legend. It's chronology, wild and even the origin of the Burmins quite mistaken. Fairly bold. He differed markedly from accounts in the Chronicles obviously. Mynd i'n gwych i siarad, nawr yno yw'r drwysymon, Hitr Pae Menendyn oed yn y defnyddio'r panlion glas yn 1923. Ych yn rhan y mae'r rhaglen yw'r ddadlau, ac mae'n ei bach o'i nodi a'r ystyf ydw i'r prosiect hon i'n eu blynic i'r beryddolion meyddiolol yw roedd yn ni. Yr hyn sy'n wedi'i canig i'r hyn sy'n eu gydig yw'r hynny, yw'r gennydgyn ni'n gwybod ac i yw'r parfn deoled yw'r hyn i'r oed. ond y cronicles. So, he was one of the first historians to attempt to reconstruct the country's history from sources other than the cronicles. He did not subscribe to the fact that Burma's history proper, if you will, began with the colonial occupation. Nor was his scholarship steeped in British imperial tradition. As people have accused people like Arthur Fair, Edward Parker and Albert Fitch, because colonial historians, as Patrick against said, believe that there were continuities with Burma's ancient past, so that if you spoke the same language, you belonged to the same tribe or fixed identity, so Patrick and I obviously have some sort of telepathy because I too read Robyn's Berlin where did my tribe come from. However, by assigning a causal role to race, or as it's referred to today, ethnicity, these earlier colonial historians continued to influence the intellectual environment that Lewis was working in right throughout the early decades. So you must keep that in mind, I think, when scientific and rational ideas of race, nation, national histories were predominating factors in colonial classification of various groups. Anyway, we have now got, I'll just go a little bit muddled here, so I'll just... So, loose, although rather, we might actually think that loose is dismissal in largely of the cronicles, because it's a little bit ironic, since he was prepared to stick his neck out and make things up a bit, or if you like to put it in the knuckle, whereas the old cronicles, or the monks that wrote them, predominantly wanted to valorise, or bigger, a king's reign. They wanted their monarch, the reigning monarch, to look as if he fought great battles and done great things. So we also might like to see loose perhaps trying to do a similar thing on the other side of the coin. But anyway, loose viewed, nevertheless, he was a professional in that sense. He viewed writing history as a professional endeavour to which the standards, the rational standards of the day should be applied. And he believed that this could be achieved by collecting all available evidence that would enable him to write the history of Burma, because I think that was how he did see it, or not he might not have written it himself, but he thought that that was what needed to be done from his earliest times. So in order to accomplish this task, he made many excursions throughout Burma over the course of more than half a century. When he was still working before independence, he would use holidays and leave time, but after, when he came back, he was doing it much more under the auspices of the Historical Research Commission. And he studied the inscriptions and to record its ancient languages. And he was assisted on his field trips by Colonel Bar-Shin, and this man, from my understanding, did a lot of the translational transliteration work. So there's still a little bit of a misconception, unsure uncertainty, I would say, as to what depth Luc was pretty good at interpreting, but how his understanding of language and the ancient dialect may not have been perhaps all his own. I know I can't verify that, but he did say that it was very important that the most urgent and valuable and the least expensive way of writing Burma's history was to accomplish this task, and it was to record Burma's ancient languages, which are now on the point of dying out. So you've got another slide here, and here he is, with the members. I don't know that they're all Burma army, but they have a fairly dilapidated vehicle. I don't know how they got about, but it did seem to go right. And here's just a little heel. They helped him, I suppose. But what he did say, so although languages like Old Mon, Old Fermis, and Qw were no longer spoken, many of the minorities at practice had had their own language or dialect, and Beaumaud's shin undertook, as I said, many of the transcriptions and translations that they discovered on monuments or other effigies. And he also admitted interestingly enough that the personnel that he worked with who assisted them had never or hardly ever heard of the existence of what he called, Lluwschawd, small and important tribes whose languages we are at such a pains to record and they had no idea that they were important. Perhaps that's the view of the ordinary people who weren't field assistants, if you'd like, with them. So then we also know that when we come to migration, which Patrick has told us a lot about, A'r rhan o'r hwn yn ei gweld yn ffnwys, i'w gwaith arall a'r cynhyrch chyfnodau yn ddod, ac rwy'n cael ei ffnwys, a'r rhan o'r holl o'r cyffredinol yn y bwrdd y rhagorau'n gyffredinol ar yr hwn yn gyfnodol. Mae ydych chi'n gwneud maen nhw'n swerthiaeth yn gwybodaeth. Mae'n gwneud eich gweithio'r ddechrau, Paul Pelliel, oedd Y Ecole Française. Rwy'n credu, ac rwyf wedi ychydig, rwy'n treffa'r rhaglion. Mae'n gweithio'r ddechrau i chi, boi'n gweithio'r ddechrau a'r ddechrau'r ddechrau yn gweithio ac yn gweithio'r ddechrau. Mae'r ddechrau i chi'n gwneud, rwyf wedi gwneud, yfnw yw'r ddechrau. y ddys Eitinirau'r deishin, ydy'r ardal cheilio. E wedyn eiech chi'n trwy'r ovalan oedd rhywgr y Chino o'r tawng King to Indio. Mae'r ardal cheilio, byddwn i'r Minister Cymru. Rwy'n cymryd yw'r adnod o'r ysgol â'r hyn oherwydd mae Llyw'r cadwau hynny. ac mae'n gwybod i'r pelliw yn ystod y ffirmio yma ar y llyfrfyniadau chynnodau chynnodau berma ar gyfer y cyfnod, ac yn ymgyrch yn ystod yma ar 1550, mae'n gwybod i'r bwysig o'r bwysig o'r Chynnidol. Mae'r bwysig i'r bwysig o'r bwysig o'r holl, ddod yn ymgwrdd yma, in a century of progress in Burmese history and archaeology in the Burma Journal, the Burma Research Society in 1948. So it's again quite a daring but definite way. Anyway, he used linguistic evidence together with the translation once again, as Actius Patrick has said, of the Chinese source Manchew written by Fan Choo, which again, Pellio you. So we do have a number of people, if you like, coming into this nix, not least of them, Pellio and Fan Choo. Loos then described, or extrapolated from this, that from the 7th century onwards, tribal groups, this is how he's calling them, dwelt along the border from northwest China to southwest Burma who've been conquered into servitude by the Nan Choo, and they were known to Fan Choo as the pew, these frontier peoples whom, as Patrick has told us, were regarded as proto-Bermans who escaped their captors, the Nan Choo. And this is what loos things, whether you think he's made it up in his article, Faces of Pre-Pecana Burma. They escaped to the hot, malaria planes of central Burma, where Nan Choo armies used to the cold plateau of Nunan, do us not follow them, except in the cold weather. So where the climate came into migration, it appears to be the case in Loos's view. Anyway, after over 20 years of study, in 1939 Loos published a seminal article, Burma Down to the Fall of Pagann, he wrote that jointly with Paymentine, and they described the Burman migrations, and they were quite elegiac and glorified them as the supreme moment in the history of the Burmans when they descended on mass upon the plains of Calcsay, is it Patrick Calcsay? They produced evidence, the two of them, pointing to the region between my car and the river Selwyn as Burmas, as the Burmans principal line of entry, this is in this article, and they eventually inhabited the Calcsay district, whereas Patrick has shown you on the map of Upper Burma as their first home on the plains, so they did a quick shuttle across to that bit outside of Pagann, so it's a little bit difficult to understand if this is how we can verify this, I don't think we can. Anyway, he did suggest that the arrival of the Burmans in other places in Calcsay, Mimbu, Pagann, and Town Vion was completed, he thought it was over by the middle of the ninth century. However, theories were not without machosism, because his own former pupil, Professor Tantun, criticised Lucis' reliance on using 12th and 13th century lythic inscriptions to explain how the Burmans had subsisted for 300 years earlier during the Pagann period. Tantun maintained that if the Lucis claimed the Burmans had speedily spread out from the small fertile area around Calcsay to create further settlements, it was impossible to know from the inscription how they managed to survive in the semi-desert of the central plains. He also dismissed Lucis' theories as conjecture and disputed his claims that Chinese sources were of uniformly high quality, and I think that's probably a fair assertion, a fair criticism, and he also pointed out that often things written were not eyewitness accounts, but it doesn't undermine Lucis' work, but I do think you need a caveat here, because they've been copied many times, as you say, by monks and other people, so errors are bounding and there were errors in translation. However, if we're on slide 17, Lucis could consider that, anyway, whatever, how they've got there, he thought that the Burman migrants gained great benefit from their escape to the Calcsay plains, conjecturing that they had found room for individual growth and national expansion. I'm quite interested in the use of the word national in that context, but that might echo something else about, he's not political, but he used that word anyway, and he claimed that successive ethnic groups like the Monk and before the pew had influenced, that is fair comment, Burmans cultural heritage, but most controversially, he asserted that those remnants of monks who were residing in the Calcsay district when the Burmans arrived had taught them letters and Buddhism, and he stated in Calcsay the first home of the Burmans on the plains, the victors, that is the Burmans, sat at the feet of the vanquished, that is the monks, as the Burmans learnt letters and Buddhism from monks. According to Lucis, Burmans, he's talking about the ethnic Burmans, the ethnicity, all the ones who turned up the proto-Burmans who he named as soon as they got here, Burmans, arrived in Upper Burmans, had caused the monks living in the area to flee southward, and as he noted in his work I mentioned earlier, Old Burma and Early Pagan, that monks were clearly numerous in the northwest corner of the district, and in doubtless at Calcsay itself, his hypothesis was based on the evidence of one evidence, of a mon inscription in the area that had been identified by his former teacher Charles Otto Blagdon in Epigraphica, Burmenica. So implicit in Lucis' statement is the idea that monk culture and religion had acted as a powerful civilised enforce upon Burma conquerors in a similar way that perhaps militarily superior Romans had civilised the weaker and more cultured literary Greeks. So he's still having much more the underlying, the foundational idea of Lucidae historian, a very much still influenced by the Victorian background that he had been educated in as a historian or of a literary heritage. These claims, however, did prove to be somewhat contentious politically because among Burmans people living in Burma at the time, this is by the time he published his book, that's towards the end of the 70s, not only because his ideas were based largely upon his own interpretive work, but also because they contradicted or refuted the evidence of the chronicles. There's still a much adherence, even in Burma's mind and their understanding of their history, that the chronicles are the basis to be relied upon. That is a very concept that is certainly worth respecting, whether that we know, but they have to be seen for what they are, that's what I've done. And they challenged the notion of Burman cultures and these particular people challenged the notion of Burman cultural supremacy as the founders of the nation, an idea that was particularly prevalent among educated elites in the country before and after independence. And it came to a head in 1971 when he received a public rebuic in a series of letters from a correspondent in the Rangun times who disputed his story that the Burmans are descending upon the plains of Minbu or Coutre in the mid-19th century and he accused of loose of wild imagination born of prejudice. So he accused him also of humiliating the Burmans by saying they learned Buddhism from the monks. So what we learn from this, what we can gather from this is that the ideas of how we label people's culture, even aside from language, when respect to their ethnicity is a very sensitive issue, is what I would say. And so, and many years later, Lewis continued with this line and he in 1959, as Patrick mentioned, is all Coutre in the coming of the Burmans. He still wanted to pin down this idea by showing that Coutre was not, it was Coutre and not Tagan that was the first home when the Burmans after they escaped. And he, actually, it's replete the article with his suppositions about Fanjou's ninth century account of 12th and 12th century inscriptions, which we remember being just dismissed as conjecture by Tantons. So according to Lewis, Fanjou distinguished the various groups of proto-Burmans by the names of their chiefs. But after these so-called tribal groups had migrated to Burma across the border into the border, Lewis assumed that they were there immediately a fully formed ethnic group whom he named the Burmans. However, despite Lewis' categorisation of the Miss Burmans, he gave them that label, he labored them. It's unlikely that various tribal groups who fled would have identified themselves in this way as part of an ethnically distinct group with common features of language, customs and culture. So I think that's quite what, Lewis has stuck his neck out there, definitely, big time. In the absence of written records, basically, we simply do not know whether or not people recognise a common ethnicity in pre-colonial times and group themselves together under a single name. I suspect not. Clearly, over time, migrants and their predecessors had to come to some accommodation with one another through intermarriage as they moved to new locations, humans mixed with their genes and their customs so that every culture and every human population has, in my view, what loses view in fact, a Robin Burling, our friend Robin, Robin's Burling, he believes they have multiple ethnicity, ancestries. So once again, we see that colonialism fostered an intellectual environment where classification, according to ethnicity, carried with it linguistic and cultural assumptions, which authorised these ideas about its subjects. And in the pre-Pagan period, it is more than likely that cultural and linguistic borrowings occurred frequently among, as Patrick has mentioned, loanwords and things like that, but it doesn't make them ethnically cohesive among coexisting polities. So that any traits or influences cannot definitely be attributed to any one particular ethnic group. Now, it's very difficult to read this, but an interesting turn of events perhaps in Luce as a historian, and it shows perhaps a little bit more of Luce the man than Luce the historian. Because as we've seen from what I've said and perhaps Patrick as well, from the 1930s, Luce held a very pro-Burman view of history in respect of their historiography and their political hegemony. By urging future, he actually wrote, he urged future politicians to look to Pagan as the model for cultural and religious innovation in the modern world. That was how he felt and kept those ideas for a long time. But the civil war and independence which followed independence and his own exile from Burma in 64, I think changed or subtly modified his views, particularly when history writing became an important element in helping Burma's minorities to establish their indigenous identity and rights within the new union of Burma. In 1947, the constitution of the union of Burma continued the colonial practice of dividing country on ethnic-racial basis by maintaining the distinction between those who inhabited the peripheral regions or the uplands of Burma and the people of central Burma who are predominantly Burma, or as I've been using the term Burma, it is a fluid term, that is whom I mean, and who are mostly Burma Buddhists. And the constitution segregated the upland peoples by describing them as Tein Ynsa, meaning sun close to the territory, whereas those in the centre were Yangongsa or Mandalaytha. So in order to claim their rights, as had already been designated peripheral anyway, to be considered of Tein Ynsa, peripheral ethnic groups had to prove that their ancestors were present in Burma prior to the British annexation of the territory in 1824. However, as Patrick has quite rightly pointed out, the paucity of written records and the absence of a clear and consistent oral history made this pretty much impossible for many minorities, including those so-called small unimportant tribes whom Lewis had been keen to record their languages. And there were one group in 1963, the rhaidja, whom Lewis, they from Arakhan district, or Arakhan, Lewis encountered these people on his tours in Arakhan. I don't know one particular, and what particular occasion, but they must have, he must have been well known enough to have drawn their attention to him. And he understood, they understood the need for written evidence, and they wanted that so they could say that they could attest to their long-term presence in the country. Therefore, they viewed Lewis' visit to Mongdor. He went up to Mongdor in 1963 as a golden opportunity. They actually write that in the text there that would help them improve their life and provide them with a means of legitimising their status and sustaining them. So, in 1963, the elders of the United Rhaidja organisation of the Mayo district presented Lewis with this formal address, and they requested him to record their history, embodying it in the history of Burma. Since 1960, their homeland had actually been placed under the frontier district administration by Nae Winn, and their racial status had been recognised by the government. So, they wanted it formalised to have their history. So, in their address, they asked Lewis to help them record that, as they say, Rohingyas had existed and inhabited the Union of Burma, interesting that they used the phrase Union of Burma, which it was at that time, more than 1200 years. And they believed that this act, if Lewis could help them, it would legitimate their right to self-represent their own identity in relation to their past and present historical practice and reinforce their claims to ingenuity. So, they held Lewis, a distinguished scholar, a genuine philanthropist, a father of Burmese nationalists and all things, and they expressed the hope that their recent recognition as part of the frontier administration would inaugurate a new era for them and alleviate their many sufferings, eradicate insurgency and suppress smuggling, all of which were very noble aims but rather damned by future events. The Rohingya hoped that Lewis would act as their interlocutor by integrating their autonomous history within his generic history, which they believed he was writing, of Burma in order to authorise their status as part of the Union. Now, there's no evidence that I have found that Lewis ever actually did at anything, but I think it's still quite telling or interesting that Lewis was approached and that he was seen in that capacity. So, I think we can see that Lewis, the man, has a lot, if I could say, look me into answer for, but a lot perhaps to put on more than perhaps Lewis, the historian, because he was seen by these people as a man of great sympathy and love for the people and they therefore approached him. So, just to conclude with a few remarks, I say that Lewis's, the Rohingya's approach to Gordon Lewis, confirms his involvement, his ongoing involvement with existing Indigenous research network, as well as with sources beyond the Burmese borders, although how reliable you want to estimate these sources or his reliance on them himself may be a matter for your conjecture. His concern to trace the origins of the Bermans strongly suggests the existence of a basic continuity between the pre-colonial and colonial patterns of political dominance. His lifelong study of Burma's old languages and epigraphy demonstrates, I believe, his willingness to engage with the technical problems of using Indigenous sources, and although he dismissed the chronicles, which perhaps that's again a contentious thing, he was still very interested in the work that he did with lithic inscriptions, shows a leading edge in engaging in his prelegrenations around Burma, shows his use, his reliance, or he's engaging with the Indigenous sources, which I think is absolutely the only vital way for people to move Burma's history forward today. And rather than retreating for them complexity and relying on surrogates, although I have to say, I think in the matter of Fantu and things like that and Paul Pellio, I think Lewis did have some tendency towards that. But he certainly wasn't in the same league as Arthur Fair, the Victorian who relied completely on surrogates. And so he did distance himself from the chauvinistic perspective of historiographies that viewed Britain's conquest of Burma simply in light of three wars throughout the 19th century. And he demonstrated that colonialism was created as much by events and interests in the non-European world as by the driving force of industrialisation and the national conflict in Europe itself. Now, as I said, loose by Tantun and others, I think it was Maitre or one of the Angthuins who accused him of making too ready to make assumptions, even changing the fact to suit historians. However, this is no more really than any writers of history, such as the chronicles have done. And perhaps we all do, although we try not to, we are influenced by our background and where we come from. And he embellished as well. And Lewis was a modest man. John O'Callw's left had told me some time ago in an email that he had met Lewis and found him to be a man of unassuming modesty. And that was John as a young student's impression. Can I just finish and then you can ask a question? And he readily acknowledged that history writing involved taking risks and on occasion sticking one's neck out because it said rather modestly someone has to do it. So as long as historians are able to emulate Lewis's modesty in accepting that assumptions can be misplaced or just simply plain wrong, then the whole process I think of writing history assumes the excitement of discovery, which is looses in my view, and I'm perhaps sure maybe yours, true gift to Burma's history. So finally, how might we reconcile loose the man and loose the scholar? As his very pro-Burman views of history in the 30s developed a much more ecumenical approach after 1948. The ensuing civil war and his own exile from the country where he spent most of his adult life. And that's those things were influential factors in his life. And I think that perhaps when we're talking of migrants we must remember that loose himself was a migrant and subject always was a migrant to Burma. If you wish, you know, if you stretch it and subject to the uncertainties inherent in this status and also the associated anxieties of belonging, he too had to integrate and belong. I know it seems easy he married into a Burmese family and his personal life experience influenced and modified his views about his adopted country. But like all migrants traces of his ancestral genealogical relationships remained in his DNA. Because although he had little contact with his family when he went after he went to Burma and he returned to Jersey, the island from which his family heritage had originated. And because Patrick finished his talk with what does migration mean, does it transcend the physical location or as he told us is migration is complicated. And I'm going to finish on a personal note if I may and I don't claim that this anecdote has any historical value. But I believe that however that was more his time in Burma is probably more about loose the man or at least equally waited. Because far as we might travel physically or migrate, we never stray far from our origins. In January 2016, whilst in Canberra, I was going through Lucy's extensive correspondence over 1500 letters. And I find surprisingly very little of a personal nature. There were no letters from parents or anybody else except lots quite a lot of correspondence with a sister Ethel who lived in America. But there was one one afternoon a short handwritten note caught my eye. The date was the 14th of December 1944. And there was a one word address on the top of the letter Rangway W-R-A-N-G-W-A-Y. And the writer was an M Snow. And the writer thanked Lucy for his sympathy regarding so obviously somebody close to her and said how much he whoever the visitor who he'd visited had enjoyed the evening with you and your letter gave him real joy at a very bleak time. I presumed that the M Snow was writing after the individual had died. Now that seems of nothing, but I would doubt that anybody sitting where I was in the lightning camera would have known where Rangway was. I wouldn't argue that there might be other places in the world called Rangway, but evidence I found out later. I spent the early few first years of my childhood in a hamlet called Rangway underneath the Blacklown Hills near Wellington in some sense. And there was an old lady who lived in a cottage at the hill called a Miss Snow. She was a Sunday school teacher, a funny old woman I didn't have I didn't know I was only a toddler, but I remember passing her cottage. And I think that was whom Loost visited. And I made some inquiries and I found out that Miss Snow and her relatives had all come from Jersey and they were a Jersey family. So I thought myself I discovered that later so that despite his migration his estrangement from his family Loost was a Jersey man and he never forgot his roots. Thank you.