British

Archaeologists have excavated an old van. It was not buried, but parked. Joke? Proof that archaeology has thrown away the map? Cassie Newland, Greg Bailey, John Schofield and Anna Nilsson ask you to strap in and consider the view.

In July 2006, archaeologists from the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Bristol, with involvement also from Atkins Heritage, embarked on a contemporary archaeology project with a difference. We "excavated" an old (1991) Ford Transit van, used by archaeologists and later works and maintenance teams at the Ironbridge Museum. The object: to see what can be learnt about a very particular, common, and characteristic type of contemporary place; to establish what archaeologists and archaeology can contribute to understanding the way society, and specifically we as archaeologists, use these places; and to challenge and critique the very nature of contemporary archaeology. What is it, and who is it for?

Map, right: UK statistics from DVLC confirm the van as a rare survival, with only 110 of its type and age still on the road. There is a clear concentration in the West Midlands, source of the excavated van. Click for larger image.

This project was always going to be unconventional. We knew that. But in many ways it was also a conventional study in field archaeology. Planning the excavation was much the same as for any site. We prepared the ground through documentary research, looking at the vehicle's service history, mot certificates and insurance reports as well as drawing on Ford memorabilia, brochures, promotional materials and models archived with the Transit Van Club. Oral historical research was also carried out. Interviews were conducted with past and present members of Ironbridge Museum staff who also expressed their views and memories on their online blogspot. Fieldwork followed convention, with survey, surface collection and excavation in the usual order.

The body of the vehicle was recorded in much the same way as a standing building. Scale photographs were taken and drawings made of all internal and external elevations, floors and ceilings. The structure was recorded in detail, with particular attention paid to wear patches, repairs, scratches and dents. Internally there was evidence of a major repair on the driver's side. A body panel had been replaced yet the bent supporting struts had not. They were simply flipped upside down and spot welded into place – one was missing, presumably too damaged to reuse. In general the welds on the repair were of a lower standard, used more metal and left a less even finish than the originals, but they appeared structurally sound. The fresh welds were sealed with a layer of black spray paint. Few concessions had been made to aesthetics and it would appear that those carrying out the repair did not expect their workmanship to be inspected. The location of the repair tallied with damage described in an accident report from December 2 1994. Oral histories collected from Ironbridge staff suggest that this accident was the catalyst for the transfer of ownership of the van from the archaeology unit to the maintenance department.

The van's metal body was dusted for fingerprints and – apart from the location of the repair – found to be completely untouched. This seemed surprising, until documents relating to the van's construction were unearthed, revealing this to be one of the first vehicles in the uk to be made entirely by robots. This introduced a further dimension as the immaculate surfaces we had uncovered reflected a huge social cost: many hundreds of Ford workers had joined the Southampton dole queues as our revolutionary van rolled off the production line.

The exterior of the vehicle proved to be in substantially worse repair. The Radiant Red paintwork on the horizontal planes of roof and bonnet had been exposed to the elements and oxidised to a dusty pink. Rust bloomed under paintwork, erupted around wheel arches, and large portions of the skirt and sills were missing entirely. The underside behind both front wheels was severely crushed where the van had dropped off a high curb. The whole lower half of the passenger's side had been extensively and inexpertly repaired until it was constructed almost entirely from filler. The paint blown in over the top of the repair did not match. The roof had been completely reshaped (oral historical evidence suggests that this was the result of being used as a diving board at a Christmas party). In fact the vehicle we were dealing with was not the one Ford had designed at all. Its profile from the side and front was completely different, more angular from impacts, more organic from freehand rebuilding, corners softened by rust. It had been remodelled by accident and by design until it was an approximation of a Transit, an interpretation authored by many hands.

Internally, there were three main stratigraphic layers in the rear of the vehicle: a carpet, a plywood lining and the metal body. Each layer revealed its own distinctive collection of artefacts and palaeoenvironmental material. All finds were photographed, planned at 1:10, recorded and then collected on a 20cm grid.

The artefacts recovered from the surface layer (carpet) appear to date from the period of use by the maintenance department, as the deposit included halogen lights and hoover parts as well as numerous smaller, maintenance-related artefacts such as screws, rawl plugs, nails and fuses. More unusually, the expected work-related objects were mixed with ones more associated with domestic use such as children's toys and a large quantity of animal hair, forensically identified as dog.

The second layer revealed a similar story, mostly small, maintenance-related artefacts with some domestic items, notably part of a dog lead. The oral historical evidence accounts for the presence of domestic items in a working vehicle. Numerous stories were recounted of the van being used to move house, or collect heavy items such as washing machines. The moveable nature of vans (as opposed to say, desks or photocopiers) means that attributes intended for work-related use, such as load carrying, can easily and frequently be coopted for domestic tasks.

The third deposit below the plywood lining was the richest and the most diverse (and necessitated the use of a trowel). The flat plywood boards and the longitudinal mouldings of the floorpan create shallow channels that allow the ingress of small items and give an interesting, horizontal stratigraphy. Moreover, because the material in each of these channels is kept separate, the artefacts show clear spatial patterning.

The artefacts recovered from this layer relate to the archaeology unit's use of the vehicle. Artefacts included several 4h to 6h pencils and a significant quantity of lost/redeposited archaeological finds: blue transfer printed whiteware, undecorated creamware, Staffordshire slipware, stoneware, several pieces of blast furnace slag, and a silver, Victorian threepenny bit. The layer also contained some party artefacts including, tinsel, confetti, a cocktailglass shaped sequin, and Christmas sweet wrappers. There were no items associated with children or animals. Once the finds had been (re)recovered and bagged the remaining material was collected and sent away to be analysed for faunal remains.

The methods employed in the excavation of the engine were also familiar even if the features being excavated were not. Engines have a distinct stratigraphy, an order in which they must be taken apart. Each feature can be related to those around it, overlying or being overlain by another. Happily, unlike more conventional sites, instructions are available – in the form of a Haynes manual – detailing how the excavation should progress. The fact that not only dates but also the places of manufacture/origin are stamped on all the major features was also an unexpected bonus!

As parts were removed they were inspected, measured, photographed and recorded. Their age, condition and any other information was noted on specially designed context sheets and compared with their as new state. Most parts were original and wellmaintained. Where they had been replaced, Ford parts – rather than cheaper pattern parts – were always used. Several components, such as the exhaust, the filters and the nearside shock absorber, were brand new. Finally the engine block was winched out and the heart of the engine excavated separately. The block was in near perfect condition. There were few signs of wear on the cam, pistons, push rods and valves. There were no metal filings in the sump, which indicates that the oil was changed regularly. There was also no evidence that the engine had ever been previously dismantled for repair. All suggested that this was a well-maintained and regularly-serviced engine.

There would seem therefore to be notable differences in attitudes towards the vehicle. The museum appears to have cared for the vehicle in a hands-off sense, sending it for regular services, paying for repairs, and not economising by using cheaper parts. The users, however, had a different relationship with it, an everyday, hands-on relationship. The users loaded cumbersome objects into the back. They sat on the ripped seats, and learned the particular skills required to drive it. To the management it was a tool, one of a fleet of vehicles; to the users it was, as one of our bloggers commented, "just an old van".

We are sometimes asked, why a van? Our response is why not! As one of us has said previously (Opinion, Jul/Aug 2006), archaeology concerns the interpretation of material culture in pursuit of understanding. That material culture can be a van, just as it can be a prehistoric ditch or settlement. Our findings may not be startling revelations, but how often is that the case on earlier sites?

We have learnt things about this particular van, and how it was used; we have even learnt a bit about this particular type of van; but most importantly we have created a stir in doing so. As the editor put it to us, "anything that gets people debating the nature and purpose of archaeology has to be a good thing".

Cassie Newland and Greg Bailey are research students and John Schofield is a visiting fellow in archaeology at the University of Bristol; Anna Nilsson is a heritage consultant at Atkins Heritage. They would like to thank in particular the Automobile Association, University of Bristol, The Transit Van Club, Ironbridge Archaeology and Sims Metal (Avonmouth) for help with this project.

Comment

Right: Results of an opinion poll taken before the excavation began (above 57 votes) and during the excavation (below, 115 votes) and after the project design was published online by BAJR.
Categories clockwise from top: absolutely against; not really convinced; fairly convinced; totally in favour.

As we dug, others debated. Is this a worthwhile exercise or a waste of time and effort (not money, as the project is entirely self-funded)? The blog hosted by Ironbridge (contemp-ironbridge.blogspot.com) has made available our site reports, and provided easy access to the BAJR site (www.bajr.org/bajrforum/topic.asp?topic_id=778), where an opinion poll has been running. Here are some comments:

An excellent form of madness if ever I saw one. TW

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. Anon

Sounds like a load of crock to me and makes archeology [sic] look stupid! I really think that archaeologists could do without this form of publicity at the moment. Especially if you want more funding. GB

If some think it a waste of time to investigate the van archaeologically because we have other sources of information, surely that undermines all archaeological practice in "historical" periods. We know better than that. The Van project has a lot in common with established ethnohistory and contemporary archaeology research practices and potentially raises very interesting questions about how we remember (and forget) alongside the micro/forensic data that the project will produce. The archaeology will stand in relationship with the other methods being used so there will be quite practical outputs from this in terms of best methodological practice. AP

This is an important example of archaeological practices deployed as a series of interventions into the contemporary and specifically as a means (and end) of marking what once was, before it passes: a life history (memory) if you will. CW

...reminded me of one of my favourite quotes from a fieldwork report in Hertfordshire some time ago... "During the excavation for the foundation of the Junior School, an entire car (dated to c1935) was recovered. This was reported to the police, who confirmed that it had been stolen 20 years earlier". MB

Palaeoenvironment

Steve Davis, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, who analysed deposits from the van and spoilheap, says:

"Archaeologically it is clearly recent as it has got some introductions in it, but without those it comes across as a timber-framed building, not in good repair (lots of things that do not do timber-framed buildings much good). So far as use is concerned, there are a few grain beetles in there, so one might hypothesise a produce storage function (although numbers are low). There are very few taxa present which are definite "outsiders", and nothing to give much indication of the site's surrounding area. There is one weevil that lives in woodlands on members of the borage family, and some things which are keen on, but not specific to hawthorn".

Forensics

Archaeological methods are often used in forensic investigation to locate, recover and record human remains. The van project gave us an opportunity to take a multidisciplinary approach, to turn the tables and explore what forensic methods could offer to archaeological investigations. Fingerprinting with aluminium powder was used to map patterns of use, shedding light on behaviours such as solo driving/passenger carrying, and cleaning regimes, as well as methods of manufacture and repair.

Film

The site of our excavation, at the entrance to Royal Fort Gardens in Bristol, and two weeks of hot, dry July weather, meant we had many passersby. We soon heard a range of views as academics and police, summer-school students, gardeners and cleaners commented, sometimes profoundly, on our project. Asound collage was constructed in which an art-historian might be in conversation with a mechanical grab operator, a former assembly line worker with a social scientist. Naturally, archaeologists, some eminent, but all insightful, join this Greek chorus to provide commentary on a picture montage revealing an iconic 20th century historical artefact undergoing deconstruction. The edited film was first screened at CHAT 2006 (Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory conference) in Bristol, November 10–12. In Transit (Greg Bailey 2006) was shown at the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) conference in Exeter on Saturday December 16 2006.

CBA web:

British Archaeology

February 2000
April 2000
June 2000
August 2000
October 2000
December 2000
February 2001
April 2001
June 2001
August 2001
October 2001
December 2001
February 2002
April 2002
June 2002
August 2002
October 2002
December 2002
March 2003
May 2003
July 2003
September 2003
November 2003
January 2004
March 2004
May 2004
July 2004
September 2004
November 2004
Jan/Feb 2005
March/April 2005
May/June 2005
July/August 2005
Sept/Oct 2005
Nov/Dec 2005
Jan/Feb 2006
March/April 2006
May/June 2006
July/August 2006
Sept/Oct 2006
Nov/Dec 2006
Jan/Feb 2007
March/April 2007
May/June 2007
July/August 2007
Sept/Oct 2007
Nov/Dec 2007
Jan/Feb 2008
Mar/Apr 2008
May/Jun 2008
Jul/Aug 2008
Sep/Oct 2008
Nov/Dec 2008
Jan/Feb 2009
Mar/Apr 2009
May/Jun 2009
Jul/Aug 2009
Sep/Oct 2009
Nov/Dec 2009
Jan/Feb 2010

CBA Briefing

Fieldwork
CBA Groups
Conferences
Courses & lectures
Grants & awards
Noticeboard
Exhibitions

British

Archaeology

The voice of archaeology in Britain and beyond

Issue 92

January/February 2007

Contents

news

features

on the web

letters

CBA news