Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
I have mentioned the subject of 'contemporary archaeology' on this site before. We at Ironbridge are now involved with a specific contemporary archaeology project, the archaeological 'excavation' of the old archaeology transit van. The details of this project (along with some of our own comments about its usefulness) can be found on our
contemporary archaeology blog.
I would be very interested in your responses to this project. Before you respond please have a look at the
Draft Project Design which is now available on the Ironbridge website. So, the question is...
How worthwhile is the project to 'excavate' the archaeology van?
[url=\"http://www.paulbelford.blogspot.com/\"]Paul Belford[/url]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
This topic has generated some interesting (and heated) discussion amongst ourselves - please feel free to add your comments here ('reply to post') as well as your vote if you feel the categories above don't adequately express your feelings.
Thanks!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
An excellent form of madness if ever I saw one.
I love all this kind of stuff. I agree that a site would be better to excavate than a van though, perhaps a site hut on the last day of a long job. I am reminded of Victor Buchli and Gavin Lucas' excavation of a recently vacated council flat. It is best if your analogous material has as much similarity to your subject matter as possible. What can you compare a van to? boats? cartwheels?
This also has similarities to the practice of incavation carried out by Cornelius Holtdorf and others. Somewhere there's a webpage documenting how CH buried a perfectly good evening meal in the garden and had a think about what that might mean. Angella Piccini might argue that as soon as you put people into the frame, the practice becomes visible as a performance, adding another level of meaning. (We all know archaeologists who are performing, and projects that are a bit of a performance).
If nothing else this kind of work highlights the fact that archaeology is a practice and process of inhabitation: building upon the activities of the people we study. Mind you, anyone who has looked down on a big ditch section at the end of a hard day's work can tell you that. After years of thinking about ditches I still can't say clearly what ditches 'mean', but I think I know what it 'means' to have spent all day cleaning the silt out of one and seen water flow down it again.
It appears that practitioners in this area tend to have flamboyant names. Sadly Mr Belford, I suspect that your efforts are doomed to failure. I shan't even try.
Tom Wilson
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Sounds like a load of crock to me and makes archeology look stupid!
I really think that archaeologists could do without this form of publicity at the moment. Especially if you want more funding.
You wonder why some people don't care about what you passionately believe in. :face-huh:
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Gary,
This will make no difference to the funding of field archaeology in Britain.
Modern and experimental archaeology over the years has proved invaluable in determining how the evidence is interpreted.
There may also be spin to forensics. So for example can it be determined where this van has been purely from the physical evidence?
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
I believe it will make a difference Peter... in the way the public view archaeologists. If this was printed in a National Newspaper... what do you think the responses would be?
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Sorry to have missed the beginning of this thread Paul. Can I clarify. Are you excavating a transit van that you have buried or are you more concerned with the internal stratigraphy of the vehicle? Either way seems to me that both are worthwhile if you are applying the full logic and methodology that currently pervades UK archaeology. I wonder if it might be possible to do the same with three or four similar vehicles and apply random/specific sampling strategies, excavation techniques etc.
If my memory serves me right in the archaeology museum in Stockholm one of the galleries contains a half sectioned site hut backed onto a half sectioned site vehicle. My favourite part of the museum, (especially as I suspect that one of the curators occasionally changes over the assorted footwear in the site hut. Probably a very funny archaeological joke in Swedish).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
As I said it will make no difference to the vast majority funding of archaeology which comes from developers or LPA and government national and local operating their part of the planning system.
The Suffolk project was reported in the national press at the time and has made no difference.
In a strict sense I would regard the project as ethnography rather than archaeology. Using an archaeological van will mean that many people will be willing to help with infomation to test the physical evidence of the van.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Have to say I think it is a very good project that looks at an item... whether a chariot or a van, a house or an object, and allows you to see whether actual known events, actual situations can be deduced from wear, patterns, damage... etc etc..
for example... can you see where wheel barrows were put into the van, and if so, without knowing it was that particular action would you have created a reasonable (but false ) asumption about the patterns of wear.
Another day another WSI?
