56 



pose. The hedges round a Himalayan village made for a similar object in the 

 present day would, if fallen into decay, present a very much the same appearance. 



(4) Fortifications. Some of them, as the Great Roman Wall in the north of 

 England, were fortifications, and intended to be defended; but most of them, and 

 those principally of large profile and of great extent, were never intended to be so, 

 but were designed as military obstacles simply. 



That Offa's dyke was not a boundary, may be shown from the position it 

 occupies on the ground and the course it runs. Why should a boundary run round 

 the side of a barren hill, when a straight course would have saved nearly half the 

 length, and the intervening ground is of no value, nor ever has been? Why should 

 a boundary always take the Welsh side of the hills ? Why should a boundary go 

 along the side of a steep hill, and at two-thirds of its height ? Surely it would 

 have gone along either the top or bottom. Why should a boundary take the turns 

 and twists it does, and not go straight from point to point, or at least, follow some 

 natural features of the ground ? Why should the character of a boundary change 

 from a steep scarp in the hills to a high bank in the valleys? and has a boundary 

 ever been made anywhere by scarping the hills ? Why, in North Wales, should a 

 boundary have another boundary parallel to it within a few miles, both taking an 

 enormous amount of labour to make ? And lastly, taking Offa's dyke in Glouces- 

 tershire (although Herefordshire antiquaries deny that it ever went across the 

 Wye), whoever made that dyke along the left bank of the Wye, made it for the 

 same purpose as Offa's dyke in Radnorshire and elsewhere— it has the same 

 character. But if they had wanted a boundary, they had a natural one straight 

 at hand, far more striking than any they could make ; and so to call that long 

 stretch of dyke scarping the hills within a few yards of this great natural boundary 

 and cutting off bends of the river which would be of no use to the opposite side — 

 to call that a boundary is absurd. It is undoubtedly a military work, and allow- 

 ing they were not both of the same date, although I believe they are, their object 

 was the same, and if one is not a boundary the other is not ; if one is a military 

 work, the other is. 



If not a boundary, what was it ? Certainly not a protection from wild animals. 

 It was too long and big for the purpose. Was it a fortification intended to be de- 

 fended ? The most elementary book on fortification would say that it was not only 

 impossible but absurd, to defend such a line, which could only be a means of 

 weakness instead of strength. 



Now, first, as to the age it was erected. There is a good range of time to 

 choose from. That it existed before the 10th century is certain, as that is about 

 the time the present parishes were formed, and as the dyke forms, in some cases, 

 the parish boundary, it is certain it was in existence then. How long before, 

 there is no evidence to show, but that it did not exist before Roman times is shown 

 by its being made in one place on late Roman remains. This shows it must have 

 been made between the 5th and 10th centuries. Tradition assigns it to Offa, about 

 the year 790, to keep out the incursions of the Welsh. The first mention of it is 

 to be found in Asser, and history even goes so far as to say that Offa drew up a 

 code of laws for the regulation of the two races on the border. The code is lost. 



