Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Offa's Dyke revisited
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
A few month's ago we had quite a lengthy thread on the origin of Offa's Dyke. The discussion expanded, as such discussions are prone to, and eventually it pulled in every unresolved problem in post-Imperial and Early Medieval British history. Recently I encountered a thirty year old theory concerning the origin of this field monument which I should like to publicise.
It may surprise those who missed the last thread that there is anything controversial about the Dyke. Actually there is no agreement about even the extent of the earth work. I think everyone now accepts that Wat's Dyke, running from south of Oswestry to Ruabon and then to the River Dee, is an entirely separate monument. But there is also a dyke running from Ruabon to Treuddyn some miles west of Wat's Dyke; is this a northern extension of Offa's Dyke or not? The central section of Offa's Dyke from Treuddyn to just north of Kington (except for a section of the River Severn) is accepted. Discontinuous dykes in Hereford and Gloucester are controversial again. Recent authors Hill & Worthington do not believe that they are part of Offa's Dyke. Ian Bapty (the Offa's Dyke Archaeological Management Officer) rejects this view, finding in Goucester a massive dyke known as 'Offediche' since the medieval period.
There is, in my view, no doubt about the existence of Offa, King of Mercia. He was a successful and assertive monarch. His association with the Dyke is recorded by Asser, although this source is not contemporary. His realm would certainly have had a border in this region with the powerful Welsh kingdom of Powys. If linear dykes are considered as defensive borders, which is what they look like, then it is important to investigate at what period of history a political boundary was present in the area in question. For this reason no linear dykes should have a Roman or late medieval origin since at those times England was a unitary state.
The author of the theory I have encountered was called J.L. Ferns. He was an electrical engineer and amateur archaeologist who chose, in 1980, to publish his theories in a journal called Industrial Archaeology. This excellent journal probably didn't boast a readership much concerned with perplexing dark age field-monuments. I have never seen his work on Offa's Dyke referenced, and a Google search for his name reveals only his books on 'Meter Engineering' and Rotherham.
Ferns felt that the survival of a structure like Offa's Dyke must indicate that for centuries it served a long term practical purpose. He felt that this purpose dated from the Iron Age and must actually involve the iron ore which is commonly found at the surface of the land in this area. This being the case he rejected the section from Ruabon to Llanfynydd as an offshoot outside the iron containing area. Wat's Dyke passes through an iron ore zone and passed Iron Age (which he called Celtic) forts. He assessed the portion of Wat's Dyke north and south of Oswestry as being unconnected with the rest of the monument and being local to Old Oswestry hill-fort. The main body of Offa's Dyke he considered a Celtic track connecting hill-forts, with its initial purpose being trading of iron and iron ore. The southern extension of the Dyke was used for trading pottery, salt and other products. The whole monument went out of use when replaced by Roman roads.
JL Ferns was well-informed about the objections to Offa's involvement in construction. Aside from Asser's comment there is no positive evidence that Offa and the Dyke are contemporary, or that Mercia had the surplus labour needed to build it. On the other hand the Dyke seems massively larger than a bridleway need be and Ferns doesn't attempt to explain the Roman remains found under the Dyke at Ffrith, Clwyd in the 19th century. I'm not persuaded by the 'Celtic track' theory but it is worth taking into consideration.
TP -
Message 2
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Having stood on parts of Offa's Dyke at periodic intervals in my life I have always pondered on its rationale. It is the same problem with all these large monuments in the landscape; namely, the builder must have used up enormous resources to erect them and so what value did they provide as a consequence.
I am currently doing work on the boundary of the Danelaw and find it quite odd that this has vanished into the landscape as if it never was. Indeed, I have concluded that the boundary was more a statement of spheres of influence rather than a line on the ground since either party maintained presences on both sides of the boundary as defined by the treaty between Alfred and Guthrum..
The Offa argument is that he was creating a defined demarcation in the landscape as to where Mercia began and Powys ended; but then most people around there at the time would have known that anyway. So what was the point?
An argument that he `sexed up' an existing landscape feature, to coin a phrase, might have some relevance. -
Message 3
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Hi Stannilac and TP
This is an interesting point that you make regarding the boundary of the Danelaw. I have to admit I never knew that there was a physical boundary and had assumed that effectively the division was a line on the map, as it were.
It does perhaps raise a point that unless a monument is maintained that it will revert into the landscape unless built of stone or being of a momentous scale.
It does seem that there are two great 鈥淒ykes鈥 obviously 鈥淥ffas Dyke鈥 and 鈥淲ans Dyke鈥 which have similar feels to them totally unlike 鈥淭he Ridgeway鈥 which was indeed a thoroughfare linking Iron Age forts .
Having said this, the Ridgeway, does as it name implies, use the tops of the hills as its route like Offas Dyke does in parts but there are no 鈥渆ntrenchments鈥.
Wans Dyke was as I understand, was named by the Saxons as 鈥淲odens鈥 Dyke and was already here prior to their expansion. I would postulate that at the very least Offas Dyke was at least of a similar age and therefore built long before Offa and long before the Romans invaded (although they may have been used and extended by them where appropriate and there are indications of parts of the monuments that are extremely straight and as TP states, that some Roman finds have been discovered at Ffrith).
My suspicion is that these great monuments started as smaller works and over the years were refurbished (and perhaps expanded and linked) as the political climate changed and used by the 鈥淧ower鈥 at that time for their own purpose.
Whoever created them used a huge amount of manpower but then there are examples of other monuments requiring similar huge investments in labour and time such as Cadbury, Gaer Fawr, Avebury, Silbury Hill etc..
The one problem with dyke monuments of this kind as a defensive shield is that typically they have 鈥渆nds鈥 that you can go around and in the case of both Offas Dyke and Wansdyke they have great gaps in the middle as well 鈥 so to me their function is still a mystery although like hillforts, perhaps they were multifunctional but obviously they were of huge importance to their creators.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Hi Stanilac & TA,
Thanks for your contributions. I thought for some time that this thread was going to receive 'nul points'. I don't think one can argue with the enormous resources that must have been deployed to construct Offa's Dyke, but I'm sure that we must not assume that it had a function. There is always the possibility of 'monumentality'; the wish of a great man to impose a landscape statement. The distinction between the Dyke and Danelaw boundary that Stanilac raises is very important I'm sure. Am I correct in thinking that the boundary consisted of rivers and Roman roads? Possibly Alfred and Guthrum intended to keep the peace but the total lack of archaeological evidence makes Stanilacs 'sphere of influence' theory rather persuasive.
I don't know that field monuments necessarily disappear back into the landscape unless maintained. Medieval lynchets and the Antonine Wall are still quite visible despite centuries of neglect. I think that if Offa's Dyke was a true boundary then TA's point must indicate that the boundary between Mercia and Powys had changed recently. One possibility is that Offa had pinched most of 'Shropshire', although early English place names west of the Dyke might indicate that it was the Welsh that were turbulent at this time. All linear defences can be 'turned' at the flanks; even Hadrian's Wall has this fault. Possibly the flanks lay in territories well able to defend themselves.
I think it is reasonable to try to date one linear dyke in terms of another, but I'm not sure that dating the Wansdyke is any easier than dating Offa's Dyke. I don't have any problem with it being named by the pagan Saxons but is there really any evidence of it being constructed 'long before the Romans invaded'? If it is Iron Age in date then we have to assign it a function or boundary. It is probably not Saxon since it incorporates hill-forts, but the position of the ditch suggests that it faced north and 'protected' a British kingdom to the south. Could it have divided a southern kingdom of the Durotriges from a northern kingdom of the Dobunni?
TP -
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Where's Genwrian when you need him, to discredit the very existence of Offa...
-
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Hi Stoggler,
Sadly I don't think we shall be hearing from him again. He was really only interested in the validation of his views; validation which he seldom received. A pity since IMO there were two serious points in his posts that were worth exploring further.
Firstly that Offa may have used the dyke rather than constructed it, or planned his construction to use pre-existing monuments.
Secondly that the Romans may not have used the word 'Picts' exclusively to mean the Iron Age inhabitants of extra-imperial 'Scotland'.
Sadly the wall of Severus and King Arthur kept getting in the way.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Hi TP
Agreed - although the resulant discussions were very interesting and I find such posters as Genwrian bring the best out of those who do have some genuine interest and knowledge in that period of history (such as yourself). -
Message 8
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 9th May 2009
Hi TP,
There is an article about Offa's Dyke in the British Archaeolgy magazine.
All the past issues of the magazine are available online.
Trike -
Message 9
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 9th May 2009
Hi Trike,
Thanks. The David Hill who wrote the article is one of 'Hill & Worthington' mentioned in my first post. His arguments have now been developed into a book. It is well worth reading, but has not escaped criticism.
I'm sure that there is still plenty to discover concerning this monument.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 10
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Message 4 TwinProbe
The Danelaw boundary is supposed to be along the River Lea to source, then north to Bedford, along the Great Ouse to Watling Street and then north along Watling Street.
This is fine until you realise there are no landmarks between the source of the Lea and Bedford that can be attributed to the Danelaw boundary. Indeed this boundary runs just west of Ravensburgh a Danish strongpoint.
Also there are no territorial boundaries along the route of Watling Street between Old Stratford and just before Towcester. My guess is that the boundary actually followed the River Tove, a tributary of the Great Ouse to Towcester.
Also the riddle of Tebworth & Chalgrave is resolved as it was on the Wessex side of the boundary and not in the Danelaw per se.
I was delighted to find the tomb of Sir Nigel Loring in Chalgrave church: now that was a very pleasant surprise!
The work continues but slowly. -
Message 11
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Hi TP
When I was referring to the possibility that monuments do revert to the landscape I was thinking of ditches (like Avebury) that are now much shallower than they were when constructed. Of course this could have been down to infilling on purpose but also due to age and general wear and tear.
Similarly the Dykes themselves would have been hugely impressive structures which is still the case but not as impressive as the size of their original construction
A point that perhaps is worth considering is whether Offas Dyke and Wansdyke were part of one construction.
Monumentality as a concept is of course possible but why would a powerful King need to leave a monument of a wall that was not even continous throughout its length when he already was famous within Europe and had his own coinage.
Most monuments of people arranged by themselves for posterity seem to be created for religious reasons or for the 鈥渁fterlife鈥 and sustenance and support for their future.
Most other monuments left by Rulers are usually to impress the living by the living and just happen to remain once they are gone.
Kind Regards - TA
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.