This is a lengthy document, with many detailed criticisms, that are primarily intended for the developers’ and the public’s archaeologists. However there arealso issues within this document for policy-makers. The summary below gives references to key paragraphs and pages for the benefit of the latter group.
Executive Summary (page numbers refer to this document – paragraphs are from the WSI)
1. The probable location of the battle of Fulford along Germany Beck was identified in the desk-top study in 1995 and recognised by English Heritage in 2003. The relevance and quality of the archaeology to identify the battlesite meant English Heritage objected to the Germany Beck housing application. A Lottery funded project confirmed the beck as the locationduring 2004 based on the ancient literature, the landscape, the exceptional tidal data for 20 September 1066 and finally the physical evidence.
2. English Heritage changed their mind following two meeting early in 2005. Following information provided last year by a whistle-blower I uncovered a ‘story’ that Germany Beck was a man-made drainage ditch, constructed after the time of the battle. It was agreed between John Oxley, Keith Emerick, senior planning officers of York Council and representative of the developers. (There is a separate document that details the discussion and decisions of the meetings in early 2005 that led to English Heritage withdrawing their objection citing uncertainly about the date of Germany Beck for their changes of mind.) The WSI repeatsand attempts to justify this claim many times.
3. For example, paragraphs 4.5.22 (page 5), 4.6.19, 4.6.20, 4.6.22 (pages 9-10) deal with the attempts to associate a drainage ditch with the beck and tries to claim that one new drain‘owns’ the name Germany Beck. This chain of false logic was introduced in the HLA in 2005 to try and cast doubt on the beck’s existence at the time of the battle. Paragraph 4.4.8 (page 3) notes the failure in the WSI to insert the C14 (carbon 14 isotopic method for dating organic material) which proves that the main section of Germany Beck not only existed but was in its present course at the time of the battle.
4. In August 2013 I notified John Oxley that I had reasons to doubt the accuracy of the archaeological work near the A19. The urgent need to have fresh work is set out in project 1 (page 15) whichalso provides 4 images to show why the work provided by the developers as part of the planning process is wrong.
5. But paragraph 3.3of the WSI suggests that this area should be exempt from investigation so that a ‘haul road’ can be inserted. If this exception is allowed it will destroy the evidence from the surface of the ford which lies at the heart of the battleandwill amount to a cover-up. (Page 1)
6. Paragraph 4.5.18 (page 4) addresses the misleading information provided about work that was undertaken in 2002. This links to project 1 (page 15)and provides the evidence to show that the work provided at the point where the junction with the A19 is planned was known by the developers’ archaeologists to be wrongwhich helps explain why they did not do the work that had been agreed.
7. Paragraph 4.5.19 (page 5) addresses the issue of a geophysics image, which was not available to the battlefield researchers, and confirms the location of the recycling sites. Project 2 (page 16) sets out the investigation required for the many hearths that have been identified with an image showing the perfect match between the unseen geophysics and the finds from the Lottery project.
8. On page 11 referring to paragraph 5.2.4 of the WSI notes the ‘widely held view’ that Germany Beck is the location of the battle of Fulford. But no work or research is proposed to address thisconsensus view.
9. I am very critical in my introduction about the quality of the work and claims made in the WSI and some examples can be found at paragraphs 4.1, 4.5.24, 4.6.2, 4.6.19, 4.6.20, 4.6.22
10. The WSI fails to meet the conditions set out in the planning consent and these are documented at paragraphs 8, 9, 11.3 and 13.1 (page 13 & 14).
11. The WSI allows the developer to own the copyright and control access of all aspects of the work which appears to conflict with the law governing copyright. Granting these additional rights to the developer could be used to deny members of the community access and prevent timely disclosure of evidence about the battlefield, for example.(Para11 page 13)
12. Images on page 15 illustrate why the work provided by the developer is inadequate. This is the first project in part 2 that covers work that is vital before any development starts.
13. Exciting projects such as the possible charcoal-making pits and undertaking XRF (a sort of DNA for iron) that might allow us the track warriors on the battlefield are outlined on page 17.
Related sites Facebook Twitter (@ helpsavefulford) Visiting Fulford Map York
The author of the content is Charles Jones - firstname.lastname@example.org Last updated April 2015
This site does not use any cookies - so nothing is knowingly installed on your computer when browsing