Page 27 - Manual for Activities directed at the Underwater Cultural Heritage

Nevertheless, just as on land, developmentled archaeology in maritime and offshore projects presents challenges and enormous opportunities
for archaeological research. Fundamental research questions can be addressed without interfering with sites that indeed can be preserved in situ. Time constraints imposed by development-led archaeology on research call
for tight and focused research planning. The cost of mitigation, including such research, can often be considered as integral to the project’s development. In many countries [including those who are party to the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage adopted
by the Council of Europe on 16 January 1992 in Valetta], this is regulated by law. However, even
if it is not, these collateral costs for society are integral to the project and should be accounted
for in the project’s development. Maritime and offshore projects are often of such a scale that they call for explicit political decisions that should take the public interest in heritage into account.
Another external reason for excavation is the need to secure a site’s continued existence, due to instability of the environment, or due to the fact that stabilizing it would be so exorbitant in cost that in situ preservation would not be the preferred option at all.
However, none of these reasons should prevent considering in situ preservation first. This applies to
© Swedish Maritime Museum. The Vasa Museum. Stockholm, Sweden.
After the raising of the Vasa the public could visit the wreck in
a temporary museum.The new Vasa museum was then opened in 1990 and attracts between 730,000 and 1.2 million visitors every year. Only 25% of them
are Swedish.The Vasa museum
is therefore one of most visited museums and an enormous economic asset for the Stockholm region and Sweden in general. This success as a national icon is partly due to strong narratives,
an excellent visitor service and a successful long-term marketing strategy.
Despite the high numbers of visitors, the Vasa museum has though never been, and will never be, a financial success.
The recovery of a shipwreck as complex as the Vasa could not possibly happen today in Sweden. It would probably be regarded too costly in relation to the scientific and cultural benefits and too big a risk when it comes to conservation and developing a successful museum.
The first option is not necessarily the preferred option. Reasons to decide against in situ preservation:
1) There are external factors that are prohibitive, and 2) There are substantive reasons to excavate partially
or completely.
These substantive reasons are the intention to make:
• a significant contribution to protection,
• a significant contribution to knowledge, and
• a significant contribution to enhancement.
The argument for excavation should be convincing and will mostly include a combination of reasons. In exceptional cases a contribution to knowledge can be enough.
26
General Principles