The evidence suggests that the vegetation has changed little since the time of the battle. Two detailed analyses have been done. The first was on Fulford Ings.

".. the pollen grains present and the respective percentage assemblages suggested little change in vegetation between 1720-1860 A.D. and 1060-1080 A.D., at which time the Battle of Fulford took place on the site. The landscape, in both cases, was dominated by Gramineae (grasses), Cyperaceae (sedges) and Typha latifolia (bulrush), with relatively little tree pollen, similar to present day cover."

"When the percentages are expressed as total tree pollen plus Corylus it is apparent that Salix (willow) and Fraxinus (ash) account for most of the tree pollen at the base of the profile [1000CE], whilst Salix, Betula (birch), Alnus (alder) and Corylus (hazel) are important at the top [1800CE]. There is no Fraxinus pollen found at the top of the core. Quercus (oak) and Pinus (pine) percentages are similar throughout the profile."

This suggests that the landscape along the Ings has become drier since the time of the battle which is consistent with the drainage that followed the enclosures discussed earlier.

The second area which has been subject to a detailed analysis was in the central section of the beck. Samples were taken at various depths in the 2.6m deep layer of peat using an excavator because the ground was unstable. In the top layer,

"The fauna consisted of aquatic and waterside species, including rather abundant Plateumaris sp., typical of emerging vegetation. This deposit may have formed in a swamp, perhaps representing an early stage of terrestrialisation of the more fully aquatic conditions seen in [the lower contexts]"

The same work notes an absence of dung beetles which, given the lack of evidence for fauna typical of grazing land, suggests that this part of the Beck was not used for animal husbandry when the peat was growing.

At the base, an alder twig was dated to 2060+_35BP ( 73BCE) and a sedge nutlet from the top sample gave a date of 1385+-35BP (636CE) . This timescale spans the late Iron Age to the Anglian or mid Saxon era. It is possible that the peat continued to grow after that time but the later layers could have been removed by cutting. However, the terminal date of around 600CE matches the model for flooding. Around this date the growth of the peat might have been checked by the influx of alluvium from the Ings.

This suggests that in the four centuries before the battle, the basin of the beck was transforming from a growing peat bog to a swamp. The channelisation of the beck along the southern edge of the peat has covered the peat with the spoil that is removed whenever the ditch is maintained. If this modern 20+cm layer is scraped back, it is possible to tread on the peat which will support a person’s weight when moving but one will slowly sink if standing still.

This would have been the soft surface of 1066 that separated the two armies. As this area is adjacent to the fording area it would have been hard, but not impossible, to cross, as the interpretation of the battle proposed later suggests.

Although the sampling of environmental evidence is limited, the data is consistent with the story derived from the literature which suggests that this was relatively open land. There is no suggestion that woodlands played any part in the battle. However, the landscape did support many hedgerows as one would expect in a landscape where livestock were grazed.

The enclosure acts of the late 17th to 19th century led to the planting of many hedges and produced the chequered pattern of hedged-fields which are still common in the British countryside today. Hedges were used because they were cheap, effective and largely self-maintaining fences. Hawthorn was the most widely planted species because of its dense growth of thorns. However, in time, any hedge develops to incorporate mixed species where the seeds are deposited by the wind or wildlife.

Following suggestions by Max Hooper in 1971, it was hypothesised that the number of woody species might indicate the age of a hedge. There is no strict, biological reasoning behind this rule, but studies, mostly in the east of England, suggest a good correlation between the number of species and the date when the hedge was planted. There were 72 hedges in the sample he used that could be traced back to the 10^th century through written records.

Hooper’s Rule is popular with landscape historians, but has evoked scepticism among botanists and it is clear that this dating method needs to be used in conjunction with other evidence.

"Hooper's Rule can distinguish hedges of the Enclosure Act period from those of Stuart or Tudor times or of the Middle Ages. We cannot expect it to date hedges more precisely, especially as many of the documents which form the primary evidence record the existence rather than the date of origin of a hedge. At present the rule seems not to extend back more than 1100 years; it does not differentiate Anglo-Saxon from Roman hedges."

Our work might also challenge the rule as there seems to be a limit to the number of species found in very ancient hedges in this are. There are a number of explanations for this. Disease, and removal of some species, might distort the figures for older hedges. However, even allowing for any distortions or margins of error, a study of hedges yields some useful information.

During the original desktop study on behalf of Hogg the Builders, 23 hedgerows were surveyed. The geology suggested that Germany Beck is a very ancient waterway and it is interesting to have this confirmed by the hedgerow survey. The mature ash and sycamore trees located within the survey area were estimated at 200-300 years old. "Some of the oldest species recorded were found to the north and south of Germany Lane."

"There is no evidence of hawthorn which is the predominant species for hedge-row laying, but its general appearance suggests antiquity. This is further highlighted by the fact the modern dyke [Germany Beck] which runs parallel to hedge 1 totally respects it." Using Hooper’s rule, the author of the desktop study suggests that the hedges along the beck range from at least 800-500 years old.

"Hedge 5 forms the western boundary to East Moor Field and Mitchell's Lane. There are nine species established in this hedge. The presence of Field Maple indicates its antiquity as this species, common in Lowland England, is often found in old hedges. Both the Ash and Willow were also of a well-established age, greater than 200 years old. Hedge 6 and 16 follow the course of Germany Beck and, as expected, suggest the antiquity of this watercourse and its associated hedgerows."

Hedge dating: This data gathered using the Hooper’s rule methodology indicates that this is an ancient hedge and it is possible to suggest that in 1066, the forces would have encountered a hedge in this location. The interpretation provided later in this report suggest this hedge lay by the left flank of the English army and might have afforded them protection when they were obliged to retreat along the beck in the final stage of the battle.

‘Hedge 16’ was re-surveyed as a part of the project by Laura Winter and Ken Gill. Their work revealed the diversity among the surviving hedges near the beck in August 2004, 10 years after the original survey. This allowed the age to be quantified following Hooper’s Rule.

The hedges were analysed in 30 yard sections and the species counted. The 305 yards assessed provides an average of 6.27 species which would suggest that the hedges date back to the 14^th century. The authors noted that some sections appear to have been disturbed and taking only the central section (B-I) the average is 7.13 species. Using Hooper’s Rule, this would move the date to the century after the battle although the provisos entered earlier should be noted.

It was also noted that few elms had survived because of Dutch elm disease and this might in places have distorted the model. There has been a substantial amount of damage done to this hedge at either end so it is legitimate to look at the peak central section rather than the average species count. All these indications strongly suggest that this hedge beside the beck is of great antiquity and could date back to the time of the battle.

It was also suggested that the present bend in the beck near the confluence and the brick bridge was not the original course. The observation was that sections J and K were younger (less species rich as well as less mature) which led to the suggestion that the beck formerly continued directly into the adjacent section.

Trenches dug by MAP along the line of the Beck indicate that the flow has indeed ‘wandered’ a little but has stayed within the clearly defined moraine bounds since the last geological upheaval. The land is covered by between 0.2 and 0.6 of a metre of silt and modern topsoil. Fluid sand prevented deeper or more extensive work in some trenches.

Other techniques to provide dating evidence for the hedges, such as carbon dating, are likely to be defeated by the biological process of decay and regeneration. Some investigations were carried out to see if any ‘ancestral’ material could be identified without success.

It is only possible to state that it is probable that there were hedges on the English left flank. Another hedge would probably have marked the right flank of the opposing army. In battlefield terms, both of these are significant obstacles especially as they are at the edge of a bank and a water-filled ditch.

We also examine the vegetation and other surface features that might impact the location of the battle. The aim is to provide a detailed picture of key parts of the landscape in 1066 and this picture is discussed with reference to the literature from chapter 1, towards the end of this chapter.