26th June 2006, 10:44 AM
Thanks for all your comments, and apologies for not responding over the weekend. However...
1. Funding. This project is not funded by anyone, all the participants are doing it in their spare time. The project has been supported in kind by organisations such as Ironbridge (for the van), the AA (for the transport) and the University of Bristol (for the space to excavate). As others have pointed out, 90% of funding for archaeology in the UK comes from developer-funded projects. I don't think that this project will affect the future plans of UK property developers.
2. Excavation. The idea is to excavate the van itself under 'forensic' archaeological conditions in a laboratory at the University of Bristol. As well as archaeologists, the team also includes forensics experts. The project will be looking at the kind of things that BAJR Host and Peter Wardle have suggested, but also (as I understand it) will strip down the mechanical components to look at internal wear and tear.
3. Is it archaeology? Everyone involved has mixed feelings about this. Certainly we are taking an 'archaeological' approach to the study of this particular artefact, but it may well be that the end result is closer to ethnography or even sociology. As Peter points out, one of the benefits of using this particular vehicle is that we have a whole museum full of people who can provide an oral history.
Interestingly some of the most violent objections have come from archaeologists. Non-archaeological 'members of the public' are on the whole much more open to the innovative nature of the project.
1. Funding. This project is not funded by anyone, all the participants are doing it in their spare time. The project has been supported in kind by organisations such as Ironbridge (for the van), the AA (for the transport) and the University of Bristol (for the space to excavate). As others have pointed out, 90% of funding for archaeology in the UK comes from developer-funded projects. I don't think that this project will affect the future plans of UK property developers.
2. Excavation. The idea is to excavate the van itself under 'forensic' archaeological conditions in a laboratory at the University of Bristol. As well as archaeologists, the team also includes forensics experts. The project will be looking at the kind of things that BAJR Host and Peter Wardle have suggested, but also (as I understand it) will strip down the mechanical components to look at internal wear and tear.
3. Is it archaeology? Everyone involved has mixed feelings about this. Certainly we are taking an 'archaeological' approach to the study of this particular artefact, but it may well be that the end result is closer to ethnography or even sociology. As Peter points out, one of the benefits of using this particular vehicle is that we have a whole museum full of people who can provide an oral history.
Interestingly some of the most violent objections have come from archaeologists. Non-archaeological 'members of the public' are on the whole much more open to the innovative nature of the project.