Talk:Cross dyke

Function

It seems the archeology is in some dispute, but I'd like to see a better explanation of the rationale behind "territorial limits and internal boundaries; current theories favour the latter two uses." I don't want to put OR into the article, but it doesn't make much sense to me that a boundary marker would be open-ended and only needed across ridges. It seems further implausible that multivallate boundaries would be useful or that an agreed-on boundary would need more than a token structure. The reference provided asserts the statement without any supporting logic or evidence, so I'd like to see a better reference in support of the claim.

To my common sense, their use as defensive earthworks seems much more likely, as a prototype Ringwork or Spur castle. I'd like to see the article rewritten to emphasize that as the most likely explanation, since the others seem implausible, for various reasons, but I don't have a reference handy to support that.--Wcoole (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We can only put in what is in the references, and I used the best I could find. If you take into consideration how steep the side of the ridges are, if the intent was to prevent a mass of warriors storming along the ridge, or to prevent the movement of carts, or whatever, running the earthwork down the scarp would be unnecessary and a waste of labour. I think some of the theories are rather woolly, to the point of being lazy - "it looks like a boundary so lets call it a territorial limit". Simon Burchell (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

They could have been both (defensive and territorial); the Ritchie and Ritchie reference states as much, at least for the Wessex sites. I agree that the article seems to lean rather heavily toward the boundary theory; is this really what the preponderance of sources state? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cross dyke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126155745/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd1.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126155613/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd2.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126155802/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd3.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214213504/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd8.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103153651/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd6.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103152857/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd5.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103202704/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd4.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/sub/crossd4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)