Transit, Transition Excavating J641 VUJ

Bailey, G., Newland, C., Nilsson, A., & Schofield, J. (2009). Transit, Transition Excavating J641 VUJ. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19(1), 1-27. [1]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774309000018 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to published version (if available): 10.1017/S0959774309000018 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document Material on these pages is copyright Cambridge University Press or reproduced with permission from other copyright owners. It may be downloaded and printed for personal reference, but not otherwise copied, altered in any way or transmitted to others (unless explicitly stated otherwise) without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. Hypertext links to other Web locations are for the convenience of users and do not constitute any endorsement or authorisation by Cambridge University Press. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Transit, Transition: Excavating J64 VUJ Transit, Transition: Excavating J641 VUJ Greg Bailey, Cassie Newland, Anna Nilsson & John Schofield with contributions by Steve Davis & Adrian Myers In July 2006 archaeologists from the University of Bristol and Atkins Heritage embarked on a contemporary archaeology project with a difference. We ‘excavated’ an old (1991) Ford Transit van, used by archaeologists and later by works and maintenance teams at the Ironbridge Museum. The object: to see what can be learnt from 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 and inhabit these places; and to challenge and critique archaeologies of the contemporary past. In this report we describe our excavation and situate it within a wider debate about research practice in contemporary archaeology. In July and August 2006 J64 VUJ was excavated at (e.g. Buchli & Lucas 200). We were conscious that Royal Fort Gardens, University of Bristol (Fig. ). Our vehicles can constitute ‘monuments’ under the terms ‘site’ was a Radiant Red 1991 Ford Transit van, first of the 979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological owned by the Ironbridge Museum archaeological unit Areas Act, and could theoretically be afforded statu- (99–c. 1999) prior to its use by the museum’s works tory protection alongside crashed aircraft and sunken and maintenance teams (c. 999–c. 2005). Following its vessels. We had also read Alan Bennett’s (1989) short Ministry of Transport (MOT) test failure in 2005 the autobiographical story, The Lady in the Van, recounting van was retained by the garage in Telford prior to its his attempt to uncover the story of Miss Shepherd, transfer to Bristol in June 2006. The site at Royal Fort who lived for years in her car, in Bennett’s drive. After Gardens was made available to the project by Bristol she died he cleared her belongings. He recalls: University’s own grounds’ services department, and the van transported there by the Automobile Asso- To do the job properly would have required a team of archaeologists. Every surface was covered in lay- ciation. The excavation was conducted by two of the ers of old clothes, frocks, blankets and accumulated authors (Cassie Newland — CN; John Schofield — JS) papers, some of them undisturbed for years and all between 7 July and 3 August 2006. Greg Bailey (GB) lying under a crust of ancient talcum powder. … made a film about the project; Anna Nilsson (AN) The narrow aisle between the two banks of seats undertook forensic sampling; Adrian Myers (AM) where Miss Shepherd had knelt, prayed and slept investigated the small finds and van components; was trodden six inches deep in sodden debris, on Steve Davis (SD) studied the environmental samples which lay a top dressing of old food. … There was (Bailey 2006; Bailey et al. 2007). nothing for it but to excavate the van, to go through There are notable influences on, and concord- the festering debris in the hope of finding the note she had promised to leave, and with it perhaps her ances with, this project including the artistic practices history (1989, 80–82). of Richard Wilson, Laura Haddad and Thomas Dru- gan for example, an interest in cars as material culture Our starting point for this project, and a key part of (e.g. Miller 2001; Schiffer 1994), and the recent emer- the dialogue that accompanied the excavation and gence of field practices in contemporary archaeology its aftermath (see below), was a recognition of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9:, –27 © 2009 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research doi:10.1017/S0959774309000018 Printed in the United Kingdom. Greg Bailey et al. gradual blurring of disciplinary boundaries that the film, conference presentations and web-logs on dif- once separated archaeology from cultural geography, ferent internet sites. Finally, as subjective afterthought, anthropology and artistic practices; and the view we reflect on our own practice and offer an historical that archaeology has moved further than ever now context for the van project. from its concern only for ancient remains. In our view, archaeology is an approach, a set of methods, ideas Methodology and perspectives which are used to investigate the past through its material remains. Thus archaeologists might This project proceeded like any other field investi- survey and excavate a modern council flat (Buchli & gation. First, a preliminary desk-based study was Lucas 2001) or Francis Bacon’s studio (Cappock 2005), conducted in which documents pertaining to the van just as they would a prehistoric settlement; they might were obtained from its previous owners, and concur- investigate a protest camp or Cold War test facilities rently, oral historical accounts were recorded to tape. in the Nevada Desert (Schofieldet al. 2006) alongside The van was surveyed, taking external and internal hunter-gatherer campsites or places of medieval photographs of the vehicle, and selected elevations industry. Archaeology amounts to the pursuit of were drawn. The interior was then subject to surface understanding through material remains, and there collection, with artefacts taken from each of the lay- should be no difference therefore between motivations ers prior to their removal. In the rear of the van there or methods for investigating ancient and modern were three layers: the carpet; the fixed wooden panels remains; an ancient chariot or a Ford Transit van. beneath that; and finally the metal floor, the latter -cor Finally, historical archaeologists typically now rugated for the most part leaving ‘furrows’ in which encounter industrial and technical materials. Highly artefacts and other material had accumulated. These technical objects now permeate not just industrial sites surfaces were given contexts prior to collection, and but the home, public spaces, the person and even the the artefacts all photographed in situ on a 20 cm grid. body. The complexity and abstraction of technological Finally, the van was excavated, with each component developments are widening the gap between materials part removed, recorded, given a context number, and popular — or even specialist — understanding bagged and stored. Some of the items were eventu- (Riley 2005). These complex materials remain difficult ally recycled with the chassis of the van. Each of the to access archaeologically, requiring specific and spe- components was photographed with particular atten- cialist skills to understand them. As archaeologists, tion paid to evidence of use and wear, serial numbers it is critical that we develop methods with which to and date stamps. The complete project archive will engage with these new materials. eventually be held at the Ironbridge Museum. A brief ‘Why excavate a Ford Transit van?’ was a ques- outline of each of these stages follows. tion we have countered typically by asking: ‘Why not?’ How can we assume it to be a futile and point- Documentary research less exercise if it has not been done before? As one of Documentary research was conducted prior to exca- our correspondents said, ‘to deny the archaeological vation. The project would collect a diverse range of validity of this exercise is to undermine all archaeo- documents, from engineer’s blueprints and advertis- logical practice in historical periods. This study has ing materials to insurance claim forms, service history, much in common with established ethnohistoric and purchase, tax, MOT and accident report documents contemporary archaeological research practices, and and archaeological site reports. We also obtained infor- raises interesting questions about how we remember, mation from the Department of Transport regarding and how we forget’ (Angela Piccini pers. comm.). In the rarity of this type of van of this age (Fig. 2). Each this report we go beyond ‘why not’, to offer what document was written for a particular purpose. Ford’s we hope is a more compelling and reasoned case for advertising materials, for example, were designed to this excavation and for contemporary archaeology in promote Transit vans for sale; insurance documents general. assess risk; and a failed MOT test slip spelled the end The main report is divided into four sections, of the van’s useful life. Each document presented a covering in turn: methodology; the results of the exca- specific if partial view of the van and the persons vation including specialist reports on the small finds, and organizations involved with it. Our aim was to environmental and forensic samples; documentation draw together these previously compartmentalized of the project through the film In Transit (Bailey 2006); documentary resources and use them alongside the and a short conclusion. We will also make reference to material record to create a new and critical perspective aspects of outreach and public archaeology, through on a familiar kind of object.

Load more