BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Chas Jones rejects claims of Persimmon over site of Battle of Fulford at Germany Beck
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
AN ARCHAEOLOGIST has hit back after developers claimed there was no evidence the Battle of Fulford took place on the proposed site of York?s biggest housing scheme.

Chas Jones said several strands of evidence pointed to Germany Beck being the site of the 1066 battle, including hundreds of iron items found at sites along the length of the beck, which may have been ?workshops? for recycling pieces of metal left over from the fight.

?We think that the defeat of the Norse army at Stamford Bridge meant that this work was abandoned and the sites were quickly flooded, preserving these field workshops,? he said.

Chas Jones rejects claims of Persimmon over site of Battle of Fulford at Germany Beck
Sounds like a case for a full evaluation?
This is a bit disingenuous...surely the report wasn't written BY Persimmon Homes, but ON BEHALF OF Persimmon Homes presumaby by an archaeological consultant.....I say out the consultant involved and let they and Mr Jones have a proper discussion on the matter!!
Yep! :face-approve:
Why would they want to process perfectly good metal on the spot? Why not just carry it away as is and sell it to the nearest blacksmith? Is there any evidence that the metalworking features date from this period?

I've done two pipeline jobs straight across the battlefield at Neville's Cross (apologies to those of a Scottish disposition), one of which included a large metal detector transect, and there's never been any hint archaeologically that a battle/massacre had ever taken place, so they clearly were quite good at clearing up after themselves
That has always been a trouble with Fulford. It probably happened... but the cleaners had been in.

Let's see if there is a reply.
Some intelligent comments on the York Press website - obviously a higher class of readership than most!
If you want to know more about battlefield archaeology, then an excellent new book is just out by Glenn Foard and Richard Morris 'The archaeology of English battlefields' (CBA research report 168). The battlefields trust has lots on its website too. I am in no way connected to any of these people or organisations, so it's not a plug! Just finished a project on pre-16th century battlefields, so I'm all clued up on the topic. The book explains what you can and can't find from these kinds of sites and how to go about investigating them.
I have little or no interest in battlefield archaeology, but I am interested in the Persimmons Homes approach to the subject of archaeological dilligence. This seems to be along the lines of: For every archaeologist out there with a view on the subject we can equally find an archaeologist happy to refute that opinion. Have we come to the point in the profession where the next job advertised is going to be one of 'archaeologist specialising in denial'....
To be fair to Persimmon, there is a battlefield register and an HER, both of which are material interests in the planning process, neither of which mention the site. They may have run a due diligence on those and other sources and come up blank, and concluded that the archaeological risk was low.

The Portable Antiquity Scheme has no record of the numerous iron finds he refers to.
Pages: 1 2