MGY Friend,

Thanks for the info on the anoxic beds... I hadn't heard about that. The fact that bodies may have reached the ocean floor puts a whole new complexion on the salvage question, as this would mean that the wreck is indeed a grave.

Point well made about the difference in pyramid and Titanic exploration, I can only say that it's the ship itself that intrigues, not necessarily the desire to gather info on the "gilded age". I agree with the salvage of personal artifacts for precisely this reason. The Titanic - and the human tragedy that surrounds her - is an irresistible combination, and I believe the victims are honoured by our learning more about them. This way, they are no longer just "names" on a memorial.

What do you, and anyone else, think?

Quote:

The problem here is that unlike Gettysburg, Titanic is not protected as a national park, although I agree, it is hollowed ground. And unlike Gettysburg, Titanic as a memorial will succumb to the greatest desecration force she has ever known: the ocean. The only part about her will be a few objects and iron ore heaps left off the grand banks. Then she will really be comparable to a battleground.

However, at Gettysburg, are there large amounts of remnants of the great battle there today? Thousands of rifles from Picket's Charge? Dead soldier's belongings scattered across Little Round Top? The answer is no. These artifacts were eventually gathered up, and today many pieces are in museums, and like it or not, in private collections.

But does this take away from the emotion and special reverence of this Civil War site? It’s for each person to judge. If the soldier’s letters and personal effects were left out in the elements, we might not have the scraps of information today that we do.

Should the Titanic be protected (somehow under international law) as the U.S.S. Arizona in Pearl Harbor? Well, the Arizona is totally off limits inside of her hull out of respect for the dead, and the wreck of the ore ship Edmund Fitzgerald is the same. I do not remember hearing protests about “Ghosts of the Abyss”, when Cameron used his Robots to look inside “the Tomb”. Is it disrespectful to do this? Would Cameron breaking off rusticles by bumping Jake and Elwood into them be considered “disturbing the Titanic”?

Quote:

I respect your position on this. However, what is one to do when there are no relatives like you to give a narration of a victims history?

For example, there was a person James H. Bracken who lived in my state of New Mexico (Lake Arthur, Chavez County). All I know about him is that he last lived in London, was 27 years old, a stockman, was booked in 2nd class, departed from Southampton, and held the ticket number 220367.

Since he is a relatively unknown person in my state’s history, I wish I could do him justice and let more people know about his passage and death on the greatest ship in history. But, as it is, with all the great Titanic researchers out there, there is not even a picture that survives of him. I just wish I could know a little more about him.

When I really think about it, I guess I have rationalized a historical contributing factor to salvaging. We do not need a piece of Titanic’s hull, we do not need the bell or the running light, we do not need China, Telegraphs, lifeboat davits and so forth. These objects tell us nothing new. I was against it all at first, but since it has happened, I want to focus on paper goods, documents, and other written records that history truly needs.

But maybe it’s not worth it. Maybe I am putting my own selfishness of wanting to know about the lost over the dignity of their grave. I am sorry if I have offended any of my Titanic friends, especially those of you who have a personal connection.

By the way, lilcandycane, I would love to hear your relatives’ stories. Do you have them posted on this site?

What do you all think about the former "unknown child" buried in Halifax?

His grave was dug up, and with DNA testing from a bone fragment, they were able to identify him as Eino Viljami Panula.

But until then, they assumed that by the boys description that it was another child lost on the ship.

His surviving relatives were flown to Halifax and were very greatful to know that their relatives remains were now known.

Was this identification not worth the grave tampering?

This topic of gravesites has even a touchy subject here in my state of New Mexico.

Some people a year ago wanted to resume the graves of Billy the Kid and his mother, and do DNA testing to prove if Billy was really buried there or not. But there is more controversy over the thought of loosing the tourist business if they prove he is not buried there, not the disturbing the gravesite matter.

Quote:


I totaly agree...i lost 3 relitives in the sinking, and i would not approve of thier stuff or the wreck itself being dusturbed....If I found that they had brought up my great uncle's suitcase and put it on display i would be angry, he is not an exhibit for a museum, he was a real person, just as precious as anyone living today....if they want to learn his story just ask and i would love to share it.....these people never got a headstone. all they got was the skeleton of titanic, let them have that

Ok. Maybe I don't "get it". Maybe I'm blind, stupid, or both, but here it goes. You don't bulldoze the Gettysburg Battle Fields for a Walmart parking lot, so why are we disturbing the Titanic wreck? The bodies maybe gone on the Titanic, but so are the bodies from the battle field. Just because a body has decomposed, doesn't make it "less wrong" to disturb the grave. The Titanic wreck had people still inside when she sank. Today you can still find 2 shoes side by side, where a body once was. The sad thing is people think that we need a warehouse full of Titanic artifacts to learn about her and the people onboard. Now I ask you. Can you tell me the difference between what salvagers are doing, and someone digging up "John William" and taking his pocket watch just to "learn about his life"?

Let Titanic and those lost rest in peace.

Tigro,

I have already talked about this on past posts, so I apoligize for the other members reading this again.

But I wanted to state my point that I am not totally against salvaging all artifacts.

When I was younger, I thought along the lines that is was disrespectful to rummage around down there and disturb the great tomb. I believe this still to an extent today.

I think salvaging such artifacts like the ship's bell, china, hull plating, and the running light from the mast is not worth much, because really, what does these objects really teach us (other than the human tragedy).

Although I find that taking artifacts like pieces of luggage can be along this same line, I do make one acception to this:

I have come to my own acceptance of the salvage of paper artifacts like personal letters, postcards, and so forth.

We all love the Titanic and want to preserve her history, and furthermore, we want to continue to learn all we can about the passengers to commemorate their memory.

Where would the memory of Ann Frank be without her diary? She would be just another forgotten name in the haulocost without it.

I believe these surviving paper documents in leather suit cases that still have writing on them are absolute treasures in that the dead can still tell us something about them, their daily lives, their plans for the holidays, their love lifes, and so forth (Kind of like what Brock said on the movie : "Should this drawing remained unseen on the ocean floor for eternity?")

Although these paper artifacts are very personal, I do not believe they are too personal and do not exploit the passengers deaths. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is more to be learned from a passenger's letter that putting his or her reading glasses on display.

Does anyone else agree or disagree?

back to when everyone was saying that the crew was arrogant or something like that, it's like a test. Before the test you think you know all the material, you're ready to ace it. You've studied, made up a list of things that could be asked and how to answer them. But then you are taking the test and... you get a question you didn't think the teacher would ask. Now normally, if you had the time and knew ahead of time you could answer it. But you didn't think of it, so you don't know the answer. You have to guess. Does that make sense.

Tigro, your point is well taken.

Dr. Ballard stated once that there was a difference in finding an Egyptian tomb and taking artifacts from Titanic in that we already know large amounts of data from ships like Titanic and the year 1912 in general (as Titanic has two other sisters which we have artifacts from). This is unlike ancient Egypt where we do not have large amounts of documented history or information, and therefore, each new find adds to our knowledge.

I believe it is a grave, just like the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor, or HMS Royal Oak in Scapa Flow, and indeed, there might be some human remains down there.

If you read "Ghosts of the Titanic" by Charles Pellegrino, he states that human bone fragments and pieces of clothing may still survive in the "anoxic beds" around the stern section.

One time he was helping clean the "muck and grime" off a soup toureen that was salvaged, and found some bone fragments to his horror (They turned out to be animal bones, like duck or something, as if part of the last meal on Titanic). Therefore, that part of the stern (at or near the anoxic beds) are off limits to further salvage.

MGY Friend, thanks for the updated info on the "Big Piece". The point remains though - a comparatively small piece of the hullcaused such problems, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that theship could never be raised, even if we ignore the moral/human aspects of such an act.

As for it being a grave, well, I'm not sure. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that any human remains actually survived the Titanic's plunge into the abyss and reached the sea floor, archeologists routinely explore ancient graves like Egyptian or Mayan tombs, and nobody thinks too much about unwrapping a mummy to find out what techniques were used to preserve it... The casts made of the Pompeii victims by injecting liquid plaster into the spaces under the hardened ash detritus where their bodies once lay... I could go on and on. So, is the grave desecration question merely a numerical one? Any comments are welcome.

it is a tomb...just because a body decomposes doesn't make their grave disapear...and yes ismay did save himself and it is easy for us to say,"i never would do that" we were not in his shoes so we don't really know what we would do. Please be a little more understanding...don't slam those who died we can learn from their mistakes...