Talk:Wansdyke

Ceawlin
Richard Fletcher, in his "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England", says that it's possible that Ceawlin was responsible for some or all of the Wansdyke. This seems quite implausible given which side the ditch is on, so I'm not going to add it, just note it here. If I find support for this claim in other secondary sources I will add a note. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman road?
Ordnance Survey maps mark it as a Roman road. Is Ordnance Survey a reliable source worth mentioning in the article, and am I reading the map correctly? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Parts of it may have had Roman use - but I don't think all of it was. Can you give map refs so we can look at the bits of OS maps you are referring to?&mdash; Rod talk 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, grid square ST8266, at least on the 1:25 000 and 1:50 000 maps (just south of Box, Wiltshire.) The map doesn't name it as the Wansdyke (so perhaps it isn't) but does mark at as "ROMAN ROAD (course of)". --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This section (and the difficulty in identifying it because of quarrying etc) is discussed here (look at the subsection entitled "From Bathford across the plateau..") where the relationship (or otherwise) with the Roman Road is debated.&mdash; Rod talk 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant link: thanks Rod. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Coordinates
I'm in the U.S. and we seem to use a different coordinate system here. Is there any way you could include the old method (degrees, minutes, seconds) in the table? I realize I should be able to click on the new coordinates, and see a page with all the conversions, but this relies upon an outside server which is often clogged or inaccessible. All these different coordinate systems are really annoying to the average Joe.97.125.31.128 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I never have trouble with the toolserver, which is actually not external but part of Wikimedia. However, if someone has time or a computer program, to do the conversions, then in my opinion they should go ahead and add them.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Construction
Could we clear up the apparent misdirection over its construction? The opening has its construction attributed to the Saxons yet later in the article under "Nomenclature" it states they gave it a name when they 'came across it'. The reference to Wansdyke in the "Bath" article on Wiki attributes its construction to the native Britons following defeat at the Battle of Deorham! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.134.201 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Who constucted the Wansdyke
I've been bold and removed the following line which was dropped into the lede of this article on 3 October 2010‎: "Its construction is attributed to the pagan Saxons, probably in the late sixth century.&lt;ref>Cyril and Aileen Fox, 'Wandyke reconsidered', Archaeological Journal (1958)&lt;/ref>" The purpose of the lead section is to summarise the content of the article, not to assert things without discussion. There is no evidence provided in this article, as it currently stands, to explain why "its construction is attributed to the pagan Saxons", and this cryptic 50-year-old reference is of no help whatsoever. As the previous person said, the rest of this article seems to attribute its construction to the native Britons. I should add I have no personal stake in the matter, but I would like to see the article discuss the question of Saxon construction before it gets asserted as fact in the lede. Pasicles (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Fox and Fox is also cited in the 'west Wansdyke' section, and several sentences date it to the early medieval (aka Saxon) period. Admittedly there is not much evidence there either, but I don't see the emphasis on Celtic Britons either. Let's move the sentence to the body of the article, and let's put more attributions in the prose. I'll make a start. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A sentence beginning "A review in 1960" cites an article published in 1958. I think there is an error here but I'm afraid don't have time to travel to a university library to dig out the sources and fix it. Can somebody else have a go please? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts, and you're right, the whole article needs a rework. The first paragraph on the East Wansdyke states (without references) that archaeology shows that it "was probably built during the 5th or 6th century ... before the takeover by Anglo-Saxons" and that it "was used by the British as a defence", but then the next paragraph says that the view that it was constructed by a sub-Roman authority is "a minority opinion". Pasicles (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Great Pasicles. It is good to see some progress. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)