I have much sympathy for this view, expressed in the website -
"If the project is only useful as analogy then why not test archaeological
methods on a site type more relevant to the majority of archaeological
fieldwork such as a house, or a church or a fortification?"
and less for this -
"To which Emma's response is to argue that archaeology is a discipline
concerned with the relationships between human behaviour and the human environment
(however constructed). Most of us spend a great deal of time in the
environment of our motor vehicles, so this is an entirely valid investigation."
But most of all, I have sympathy for myself, as I'm a taxpayer. Am I paying?
As a member of the public I do understand that this may teach much about
techniques but I can't help feel that a little thought could have been given to
choosing a project that did that AND added to other knowledge as a free
spin-off. Is funding for the sector so generous that costs don't have to be
carefully targetted to liberate maximum benefits? In addition, choosing an
archaeologists' van, rather than say a plumbers one, was a tad unwise IMO since it
will add much to the Daily Mirror's fun and nothing to the profession's
However, perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, and I'm not paying.