Last week I interviewed Fred Hocker, the director of research at the Vasa Museum. After trying to find a time we were both available, I ended up taking the commuter train out to the suburbs to meet with Mr. Hocker at his home, as that afternoon he was leaving for a trip. Hocker has worked on numerous maritime archaeological sites around the world, and he gave me some great advice on contacts for Turkey and Australia. Hocker is actually an American, and he has been working at the Vasa Museum for almost a decade. He is in charge of the ongoing investigations relating to the Vasa, as well as other 17th-century shipwrecks found in Sweden. Hocker works with the research, not with the publicity of cultural heritage. During the interview we discussed the benefits and drawbacks of raising a wreck, how the Vasa Museum shares its information, and other interesting topics relating to maritime archaeology and the Vasa. For those of you who are reading this blog for the pictures, I'm sorry to say that you're be disappointed in this post. But there's a lot of interesting information for my project!
To Raise a Wreck or Keep it in situ?
When I asked Hocker his opinion on raising wrecks, he said that there are several aspects to consider for each case. Hocker said that had the Swedish government known the cost of raising, preserving, and maintaining the Vasa, it is unlikely they would have chosen to raise it. However, now that they do have it, the Vasa is a wonderful resource. Also, because Sweden has the Vasa, it is very unlikely that they would ever want to raise another substantial shipwreck. It would never be worth the time, effort, or cost, especially since the Vasa Museum already fills the role of getting the public interested in shipwrecks.
Hocker also noted that while the current philosophy among maritime archaeologists is in situ preservation, he does not agree that that is necessarily the best case for every wreck. Certainly, most wrecks should remain underwater, for a number of reasons (which I will discuss below). However, he disagrees with the idea that raising a wreck is wrong. A raised wreck can have considerable value, especially in igniting the interest of the general public in maritime history. When considering whether a wreck should be raised, Hocker explained to me that there are certain questions to ask and aspects to consider.
Is Raising This Wreck Worth the Cost?
Cost-benefit is very important to consider in the field of wreck-raising. It is extremely expensive to raise and preserve a wreck. Can the government make the money back through admissions to a museum or another fundraising initiative? Hocker also noted that one must consider how best to allocate funding for maritime archaeology. Is it better to raise one Vasa-like shipwreck, or to do archaeological in situ research on over sixty wrecks?
However, at least in the case of the Vasa, the money donated for the raising of the wreck probably would not have been available for in situ research. People are likely to make large-scale donations for something as momentous as raising a 17th-century ship, while fewer would be interested in donating for research conducted underwater. These benefactors want to see the ship themselves; they want to know where their money is going. Because of this, the argument that the money for raising wrecks could be better allocated elsewhere can be challenged. However, even with wealthy benefactors, raising a wreck is still a great cost, and a cost-benefit analysis should be considered.
Would This Raised Wreck an Effective Tool to Communicate Something Significant?
Hocker discussed how certain raised wrecks can be effective vehicles to excite the public about maritime and naval history. Even if people cannot learn specific historical facts about a wreck, a displayed shipwreck can get people interested in learning more about the wreck's historical context. One raised wreck can be a tool to communicate research about other wrecks not on display. Hocker called a raised wreck an "iconic focus" for the public. Were the Vasa not actually in the museum, people could still walk through the exhibits and learn a great deal from models and replicas. But the ship itself--what Hocker calls the 'wow factor'--is what entices people. Not all wrecks are exciting-enough to be worth the efforts to raise and preserve them, perhaps because they are not intact or not very grandiose.
Also, in Sweden at least, there is little need for another large raised wreck from the 17th century. Another raised wreck would not be an effective tool to excite the public, since the Vasa already is Sweden's tool. For example, a 17th-century merchant ship, nicknamed the Ghost Ship, was recently found in the Baltic Sea. It is in great condition and would be an excellent vehicle for contextualizing Baltic Trade. Sweden, however, has no interest in raising another 17th-century ship. The Dutch, on the other hand, are considering possibly raising this ship and bringing it back to Holland. As they have nothing like the Vasa Museum, this ship would be a good resource for them.
Is This Wreck Safe Where It Currently Is Wrecked?
Some wrecks are and should be raised because it is important to preserve them before they deteriorate. If the underwater environment is ruining the wreck, it is reasonable to consider raising the wreck before this piece of heritage is destroyed. In Sweden, this is rarely an issue. As I discussed in my Axmar Blue Park post, the underwater environment in this area is very conducive to preserving wrecks.
Is This Wreck Logistically Feasible to Raise?
Hocker explained to me that raising the Vasa was a relatively easy process because of the wrecked ship's location. As I noted in the post about the Vasa Museum, the Vasa sank in Stockholm's harbor. So when the archaeologists looked into recovering this wreck, there were many advantages. First of all, the Vasa was intact, making it easier to raise and float to shore.
The Vasa also was inside sheltered waters. Hocker explained to me the benefits of a sheltered wreck versus one in open water. The issue with attempting to raise a wreck in un-sheltered water is that the archaeologists cannot do any process or project underwater which takes a long time. They have about a two-hour warning for when the weather will change, and if the weather gets bad, they need to go back to shore. So if the unit needs to do something for the process of raising the wreck that takes more than two hours, they never know if they will have to abandon it mid-mission. This makes the planning and execution of the wreck-raising very difficult, as the divers need to be able to stop their work and pack-up at about two hours' notice.
Finally, the Vasa was wrecked basically right in front of the Swedish Navy's main diver school. Having the team and equipment to raise a wreck so close made the process quite feasible. For any wreck, one must consider the potential feasibility of raising the wreck, as it can be a very difficult process depending on the location and condition of the wreck.
Can This Wreck Get its Message Across in its New Location?
Once a wreck is raised, it has to be housed somewhere. Most often, this is a museum. Hocker suggested that one must consider the location of this museum. He told me about the Mary Rose wreck in England, an impressive 16th-century wreck housed in Portsmouth, England. Mary Rose is a very significant find in the field of maritime archaeology. However, Hocker explained to me that due to its location, the Mary Rose is not nearly as famous as the Vasa. The ship has about 300,000 visitors a year, compared to the Vasa's 1.2 million visitors. While the Vasa Museum is in Stockholm, the Mary Rose is up in Portsmouth, rather than in a more central location, like London. It is not easy to get to, and it is not on the way anywhere. Therefore, while this ship has been compared to the Vasa in its historical significance, the Mary Rose does not have nearly as wide-spread an impact as the raised warship Vasa. One of the great benefits of raising a wreck is to excite the public, and if a wreck will not be easily accessible to the public, it becomes less worthwhile to raise.
Will This Wreck Tell its Story Well?
Another question we discussed was whether a specific wreck has a strong potential to tell its story. Hocker referenced a ship he worked on in Turkey, where the archaeological finds inside were very significant for a specific time period's economy. However, in the museum exhibit itself, the significance of the wreck is hard for a visitor to understand. If a wreck cannot tell its story well, it probably is not worthwhile to raise it and display it to the public. Leaving it in situ for archaeological research would have the benefit of allowing researchers to learn about the wreck's past without the hassle of raising it to the surface.
What Else Could One Do With This Wreck?
Hocker and I also discussed what other options can be considered for a wreck. Is there a better use for a specific wreck than raising it? If a wreck does not seem worth raising, there are other options. We discussed dive parks, where sport divers could appreciate the wrecks in situ. A benefit of establishing a dive park is that the sport divers could go with a guide, who could teach them about the history of the wreck as well as the safely precautions needed for diving near a wreck. This would help not only keep the wrecks safe from inadvertent damage, but also keep the divers safe.
Hocker also told me his opinions on commercial exploitation of wrecks. He said that in his field, most people are vehemently against treasure hunting. They do not think civilians should be able to own and sell shipwrecks or their contents. Hocker, however, has a different opinion. He made an analogy to owning a 17th-century home. He said that people who own historical homes have to follow certain regulations. They cannot just gut the house and put in a modern interior; they cannot rip apart the house and sell it brick-by-brick. An owner of a 17-century home must follow guidelines to preserve the house as cultural heritage. Hocker asked why we cannot have a similar situation with shipwrecks. Like a house, certain regulations would have to be made, so the owner could not rip apart the wreck and sell it piece by piece. They would have to follow these rules to know what they can and cannot do, what can be changed, and what must be preserved. Hocker admits that his opinion is not the norm. However, he says that with so many historic shipwrecks, it is impossible for governments to preserve them all. By having private owners, more shipwrecks could be preserved by the private sector. This view was something I hadn't considered, and I must admit I'm not quite sure my opinion on it. I think treasure hunting in general is bad, and that everyone should work to protect and preserve any underwater heritage and not use it for profit. I also question whether it is a good idea to let someone own this heritage, since it would then not be available to the public. However, if someone purchased a shipwreck and then dedicated their time to maintaining it, I guess that would be beneficial, especially if the alternative is for the wreck to deteriorate underwater or be stripped of its contents by looters.
Hocker also suggested that a good way to preserve shipwrecks underwater is to have local dive clubs adopt shipwrecks. In fact, most wrecks found in Sweden are discovered by dive clubs, and some have done extensive research on the wrecks and have volunteered to help more. This way, the local people are taking initiative to protect their underwater heritage, and there are more people than just the staff of the maritime museum maintaining the many shipwrecks. Of the five significant 17th-century wrecks currently being studied by the Vasa Museum, none were discovered by archaeologists. (Hocker explained to me that the Vasa archaeology research unit does not just research the Vasa and its findings, but rather they are called if any 17th-century wrecks are found. This is because the Vasa archaeologists are extremely knowledgeable about this era. The other wrecks are researched by the Maritime Museum's archaeologists). Three of these wrecks were discovered by dive clubs.
The other two wrecks were found by MMT, a Swedish geological survey company. This company does marine surveys, and they discovered two wrecks with their technology. Hocker said that the owner of this company is very interested in historical wrecks, so he has loaned his survey equipment to the Vasa archaeologists for a week at a time to help out with the discovery and research of Swedish wrecks. To me, the dive clubs and MMT are impressive examples of the community's involvement in Sweden's underwater heritage.
It is clear that there are many different options of what to do with a discovered wreck other than raise it. So when considering whether to raise a wreck, one should think about other uses for the wreck in situ, and how a wreck left underwater can be appreciated, too.
Will This Wreck Teach Us Anything New?
In Sweden, any wreck over 100 years old is considered national heritage and is the property of the Swedish government. But there are many modern wrecks, too. Hocker explained to me that with the advancements of maritime archaeology in the recent century, some modern wrecks are completely unnecessary to raise. At a certain point in modern history, a wreck can be so well-documented--from ship logs to blueprints to first-person accounts--that there is little archaeologists can learn from raising it. In fact, for some wrecks, there is little use in even doing in situ research. This growth of archaeological awareness is changing how maritime archaeologists approach modern wrecks. The advancement of record-keeping might make future research on modern wrecks not worthwhile.
The Vasa Museum: How to Share its Story
While Hocker and I discussed the questions he thinks are important to consider when one is debating whether to raise a wreck, we also talked about how the Vasa Museum is much more than a wreck in a building. Clearly, despite the continual cost, the Vasa was worthwhile to raise. The ship and its museum are an excellent vehicle to share information on the Vasa itself as well as the context of 17th-century Sweden and 17th-century seafaring in general. The newly-discovered 17th-century wrecks in Sweden may be incorporated into the museum eventually, as they would be useful in contextualizing the Vasa. The Vasa shipwreck is a vehicle to take the visitors back to the 17th-century. People need context, and the exhibits use the Vasa as a way to share much more than the story of that one ship.
We then talked about the Vasa as a museum. Hocker said that the museum is very anti-text, with mostly diagrams, models and pictures. This is because in the summer, 8,000 visitors a day need to get through the museum. With lots of text, people will take much longer.
Hocker explained that they consider the Vasa Museum to have two versions: the summer and the winter. In the summer, the thousands of visitors are there for the 'wow-factor.' The average visit is around 45 minutes. Most often people come in large groups. With such situations, there is no way to get across a deeper meaning. It is hard for the museum to share a lot of information in the summer, so they cater to getting as many people as possible to experience that 'wow-moment' of seeing the Vasa.
Because there are so many visitors, the museum has to market to everyone. There's really no specific target audience for the Vasa, although Hocker said the average visitor is a 35-year-old German woman. The Vasa Museum attracts maritime history enthusiasts, 'gun nuts' who want to see the cannons and learn about sea warfare, people who simply are there with a large group from a cruise tour, and more. The Vasa is the most-visited museum in Sweden. The number of people who go to the Vasa has risen by half a million annually in the last nine years Hocker has worked there. All increase is from foreign tourism, mostly in the summer.
In the winter, there is a higher proportion of Swedish visitors. The average visit lasts a couple of hours. With such conditions, the Vasa Museum has the opportunity to share a lot more information. Most of the temporary exhibitions are in the winter, because people have the time to learn about this new research and the new contextualization. The Vasa archaeology unit is continually preserving and studying the Vasa and its contents, and in the winter they have more of an opportunity to share that research. Hocker said he and his colleagues like to do their work in front of the tourists, so visitors know that while the Vasa was raised decades ago, they are always learning new things.
Hocker himself like the bigger context. As the research director, he develops this context. He thinks it is important to not think of the Vasa Museum as the home of a specific ship, but rather a place to learn about 17th-century society and how the ship represents a bigger picture. The Vasa was built during the 30 Years War, which gives it a world-wide context. It also was built during the same period as the English Civil War and when Spain was conquering the Americas. Rum from the Caribbean was found on board. The Vasa's wood was imported from Poland. This shipwreck represents much more than just Swedish society in the 17th-century. Hocker's job includes developing this bigger concept and finding strategies to make this information available.
There are two ways to share the newly discovered research from the Vasa. One is through books. As the museum is rather anti-text, a book would allow someone a much deeper understanding of the Vasa and its international context. Hocker has written many books on the Vasa, one of which is a best-seller in its genre. However, Hocker added that by bestseller, he meant that it has sold 1,200 copies. An entire publication of a book like this would be 4,000. So even if every book of that publication were purchased, the readers would equal half the number of people who go to the museum on any given summer day. Because of this, Hocker believes the best way to share more information is to educate the guides.
At the Vasa Museum, the guides will talk to more people than will ever read what is written about the Vasa. A standard 25-minute tour is given every hour. However, the guides are strongly encouraged to do research and develop a tour on their own interests. Some examples are an architecture tour, where the guide teaches about the museum building's architecture, a preservation tour, a chemistry and science tour, and a shipbuilding/carpentry tour. People can also tour the magazine. Recently a queer tour was developed, where the guide discusses the gender roles on board the Vasa, since a woman's skeleton found in the Vasa appeared to have been wearing men's clothes. Hocker did a special tour based on the economies of Sweden and other countries in the 1620's for a group of visiting European bankers. By advertising these themed tours and also allowing people to request them, the Vasa Museum has a vehicle for letting visitors delve more deeply into a specific interest of theirs. This allows the guides and also others who work at the museum to share new research and to discuss more than the very basics of the exhibits. One thing Hocker stressed to me was that while they will make just about any type of tour, there is no on-board tour.
So Who Actually Gets to Step Foot on the Vasa?
Hocker said that there is tension at the Vasa Museum relating to allowing people on-board. Clearly, it is not feasible to have visitors to the Vasa board the ship. First of all, it would be difficult to be sure the ship remained preserved, as over a million people visit the museum annually. Also, there are just too many visitors to allow every person to walk through the ship. People would be lined up for hours. So while it would be a great experience for people to actually step onto the Vasa, it will never happen.
When being trained, the guides are brought onto the ship. While they are allowed to take pictures, they are not allowed to publish them online. That means no pictures on board the Vasa can be on Facebook. The museum finds it imperative that people do not come to the Vasa Museum with the assumption that visitors can board the ship. They are very careful to make sure that the public doesn't have that impression.
However, there are a few Very Important People who get the honor of going onto the Vasa. Hocker filled me in on which people can really board the ship. Heads of State, Nobel Prize winners, certain colleagues and students of maritime archaeology are allowed private tours on the Vasa. The king and his guests are always allowed on board. In fact, the island on which the Vasa Museum is built is the only island in Sweden where the king is still the absolute monarch. When they want to do any construction or expansion at the museum, they actually have to ask the king's permission. So of course the king has the right to board the ship. However, if a visiting monarch is there, the foreign king can board, but his heirs and his Prime Misister are not invited. Hocker said that they made an exception this past spring for Prince Charles, but as he is the head of the Mary Rose trust, he is sort of a colleague, too. Donors cannot buy the right to go onto the Vasa. However, sometimes they take potential donors on an on-board tour, in order to entice them to donate to the museum. It is a very exclusive group which is allowed onto the ship!
Final Thoughts
From my interview with Hocker, I not only learned a lot about the Vasa and their struggles to share their new research, but also about the issues one must consider when contemplating whether to raise a wreck. While the Vasa Museum makes it look like raising a shipwreck is a great way to bring underwater heritage to the masses, not every shipwreck is worth raising. Even the Vasa Museum, a very popular destination, struggles with portraying this specimen of underwater heritage and its contextual significance. However, no one can deny that the raised Vasa has made millions of people aware of and excited about shipwrecks.
No comments:
Post a Comment