When Robert Ballard/Woods Hole found it in 1985, I understood that he could have claimed it and thereby legally kept others from salvaging items off of the wreck.

I respect his opinion that it be preserved as a grave site but I personally don't see anything with bringing artifacts up from the wreck. The public can't go visit the thing like the Arizona for example. Maybe that's why I take a different view of Titanic than I do the Arizona. I like that no one can dive on the thing except for Navy and or the Parks system to either survey it's condition or to inter deceased attack survivors in the dignified manner in which they do.

Anyway, I've always viewed Ballard's position of removing artifacts from Titanic as somewhat sanctimonious and a little hypocritical. I mean don't complain about it when you were the only one that could have kept it from happening. Did he really think that it was going to be left alone.via the honor system?

Curious what others think or perhaps there's more to the story.

He might not have tried to because the shipwreck is in international waters, and since different countries have different salvage laws, it'd be very difficult (if not impossible) for him to claim it. Once 2012 (the 100th anniversary of the sinking) rolled around, the ship did gain a protected status under UNESCO (you can read about it here), which should stop almost all artifact collection, although I'm not sure how enforcement would work.

Quote:

---

I personally don't see anything with bringing artifacts up from the wreck

---

I don't either. Much better way to honor and remember these people than just leaving everything down there.

I know some dont agree, I understand the graveyard angle but if it were me or someone in my family and there was something salvaged that belonged to them it would just seem like a better tribute and connection.

Quote:

---

I like that no one can dive on the thing except for Navy and or the Parks system to either survey it's condition or to inter deceased attack survivors in the dignified manner in which they do.

---

Where does James Cameron fit into this equation?

Nuh Uh. Jack sank.

As far as the OPs question I don't know either. The wreck will be gone pretty soon due to the rate it's deteriorating so that sense having physical objects for museums and memorials would be nice. However I do agree that it is considered a grave site and should be treated as such. Now there is company stating that if you want to fork over 100 grand (or whatever the price is) you can dive on the wreck. While that would be awesome to see the site, I'm too much of a wuss to go down 2 miles to see it, this could possible lead to people paying extra to play the "claw" game on the submersible and try to grab stuff from the bottom so they can have a cup or plate in their collection. I know artifacts have been recovered before but I think all from research trips not profit trips. I guess as I type this out I find myself wanting it to be left alone. Let it disintegrate and be done. Treat it with respect.

Quote:

---

Maybe he couldn't because the Navy was funding his expedition.

---

This.

aalan94 said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe he couldn't because the Navy was funding his expedition.

---

This.

---

I think so too and maybe that's why it came off as somewhat puzzling, i.e., to complain about something he seemingly could have at least tried to prevent.

By the way, if he was not out there on the US Navy's time, couldn't he have just grabbed something and then legally claimed salvage rights?

Fyi - after making my original post on the subject, you'll notice about an hour later I surmised the Navy angle. Usually when I post a question I then go into full worry mode about whether I had asked a stupid question or not. That's when I really start to think about the topic.

Thanks for the responses.

JJMt said:

---

I've never completely understood something. How old does a gravesite have to be before it's OK to dig it up? Also, which cultures are OK to dig up Their graves and which are not? Archaeologists and others seem to think it's completely OK to dig some up.

---

In my job we have come across many historic and prehistoric graves. There are federal laws (NAGPRA) that "manage" how native graves are to be handled. You try to avoid messing with them at all cost but when you do have to move them ("mitigate" is the actual term) that is when the Archeologist do their thing. These are the ones that are "studied". They are "dug up" because they will pretty much be lost forever.

You will find that most graves that have to be moved are found after construction projects are started. In my cases, there were entire cemeteries that had to be moved because they would be inundated under reservoirs. We also find graves, both native and early Texas history white man, that erode out of shorelines. The have to be mitigated. If obviously native then you have to deal with the local natives, even though they might not have inhabited the area when this person was living (Which is typically the case in Central Texas. Most of them are 800 to 1,500 years old and the locals didn't come into the area until well after that.)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act applies to those graves on Federal property. If you dig them up and get caught with the goods you can loose nearly everything associated with having them, ie truck, boat, house... anything.

JJMt said:

---

Good points, Rabid, but kinda missing my point.

The U.S. has protected some graves by federal law, but those laws obviously do not apply to some graves in the U.S. or to graves outside the U.S.

Why should the Titanic be protected but not other vessels that have sunk? Why should native American graves be protected but not Egyptian graves? Why is it OK for an archeologist to exhume a grave, but not a non-archeologist?

---

Grave desecration is mainly covered by state laws. In Texas, the State Historical Preservation Officer and his/her office and the courts have a great deal to say if you can or cannot open up a historical grave, in regards to an Archeologist.

Maritime laws cover sunken vessels. All warships are covered by their own nations' laws as they are sovereign to that nation. Not sure how Titanic falls into this.

The U.S. has no control over Egyptian graves. However, it does have laws in place for possession of stolen property..

Non-archeologist are looters, they are only after points and pots for financial benefit. If they come across a burial they strip of beads and other funerary objects and toss the bones. I say this do to my job, protecting archeological sites on federal lands.

Sort of related, we drove past the Titanic Museum in Pigeon Forge, TN, this past week. This is it:

Quote:

---

Maritime laws cover sunken vessels. All warships are covered by their own nations' laws as they are sovereign to that nation. Not sure how Titanic falls into this.

---

Titanic was a Royal Mail Ship. As I understand, RMS ships were built to Royal Navy specs. RMS ships could be pressed into naval service if needed. Not sure why or if British Government didn't pursue based on these grounds. Titanic's salvage rights were awarded to RMS Titanic, Inc. which is owned by Premier Exhibitions out of Atlanta. I saw the exhibition in Vegas 20 years ago.

Ballard wrote a book Return to Titanic and he described how tourist dives are contributing to the collapse of the wreckage. A New York couple was married in a submersible that landed on Titanic's bow. Ballard has said that what should be a monument to the dead has turned into a "freak show at the county fair".

Here's some good news regarding the protection of the RMS Titanic. Unfortunately, the treaty only applies to the UK and US.

https://time.com/5767262/titanic-treaty/

Quote:

---

The world's most famous shipwreck, the RMS Titanic, will be more rigorously protected under an international agreement, the U.K.'s Maritime Minister Nusrat Ghani confirmed ahead of a Tuesday visit to Belfast, where the ship was built.

The U.K. and the U.S. will now be responsible for granting permits to those wishing to visit the wreck and remove artifacts. The agreement, which was signed by the United Kingdom in 2003, was ratified by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last year. The agreement will further protect the wreck, which became a UNESCO cultural heritage site in 2012. The U.K. will take a leading role in protecting the wreck, encouraging other North Atlantic countries like France and Canada to sign the agreement.

"Lying two and a half miles below the ocean surface, the RMS Titanic is the subject of the most documented maritime tragedy in history," Ghani said in a press release. "This momentous agreement with the United States to preserve the wreck means it will be treated with the sensitivity and respect owed to the final resting place of more than 1,500 lives."

-snip-

In 1994, the company RMS Titanic Inc., a subsidiary of Premier Exhibitions, became the wreck's salvor-in-possessionthe only company allowed to collect artifacts. The company has now collected more than 5,500 artifacts, including a 17-ton section of the hull that was raised out of the ocean in 1998. Some artifacts were previously auctioned off by Henry Aldridge & Son, such as a water-stained letter written by a passenger on board the ship that sold for 126,000 ($163,800) as well as a violin that sold for 1.1 million ($1.43 million). Photographs taken of the wreck during expeditions allowed the company RMS Titanic Inc. to recreate digital images of the grand staircase that featured in James Cameron's 1997 film Titanic.

For years, diving companies such as Ocean Gate have commercialized diving expeditions to the wreck by making them available to tourists prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars. The first tourists dived to the wreck in 1998 and officials believe the last confirmed trip was in 2012.

"It is difficult to ascertain the activity around the wreck of the Titanic as there is currently no regulation," Juliet Eales, the senior press officer for the U.K. Department of Transport, told TIME in an email. The new legislation will require trips carried out by U.K. or U.S. vessels to be sanctioned by either country through a licensing process.

"Although this applies to U.K. and U.S. only, it goes a long way to restricting unregulated access as it targets many of those who are driven and equipped to carry out an expedition of this sort," Eales added.

---

Gator92 said:

---

Quote:

---

Maritime laws cover sunken vessels. All warships are covered by their own nations' laws as they are sovereign to that nation. Not sure how Titanic falls into this.

---

Titanic was a Royal Mail Ship. As I understand, RMS ships were built to Royal Navy specs. RMS ships could be pressed into naval service if needed. Not sure why or if British Government didn't pursue based on these grounds.

---

The title "Royal Mail Ship" has nothing to do with Royal Navy specs.

That being said, Titanic's sister ships were pressed into naval service in WW1: Olympic as a troop transport, and Britannic as a hospital ship.

JJMt said:

---

Nice in theory, but in reality much that's recovered by archaeologists goes into drawers, never to be seen again by other human eyes.

Archaeologists may not be digging simply for money, but they're not completely altruistic either. What they find and dig up builds their careers.

I guess what I am saying is that if it's wrong for me to dig something up, shouldn't it be wrong for an archaeologist to dig it up, also? If it's wrong it's wrong. Archaeologists aren't anything special.

---

Actually you can dig on PRIVATE PROPERTY with land owners permission to your hearts content. You can even sell what you find and no one can do anything about it. Applies even to archeologist. I would highly suggest you don't try selling human remains...If you want to attract lots of attention, go dig up a Caddoan burial mound in East Texas.

Quote:

---

The title "Royal Mail Ship" has nothing to do with Royal Navy specs.

That being said, Titanic's sister ships were pressed into naval service in WW1: Olympic as a troop transport, and Britannic as a hospital ship.

---

I recall Martin Bayerle in History's Billion Dollar Wreck making a claim to support his theories that ships certified to carry mail had to meet certain specs. And these specs were determined by Royal Navy. Since I couldn't find any info to support, I decided to message Martin on Facebook.

Just for laughs, while we're on the topic of the RMS Titanic ...



(from Bizarre Foreign Ripoffs Of Iconic Movies And Shows)

Link

here's an update on the Titanic: a research submarine hired by EYOS Expeditions collided with it last year (and this was kind of covered up); US wreck salvage firm RMS Titanic Inc. wants to cut into the wreck and retrieve the Marconi wireless set; and Captain Smith's porcelain bathtub has disappeared ...

UK Daily Mail

Quote:

---

Next month RMST will ask a judge permission to retrieve artefacts from within the remains of the wreck, including the Marconi wireless radio which in 1912 was a world-leading communications device and trasmitted the ship's distress signal.

RMST, backed by Private Equity firms, wants to use three underwater robots to lift part of the ceiling to grab the Marconi wireless.

A document seen by the Telegraph said: 'In the next few years the overhead is expected to collapse, potentiality burying forever the remains of the world's most famous radio.'

RMST claims it wishes to preserve the relics on the wreck before they are lost to history.

However, the plans have been criticised as little more than an attempt to 'pilfer and pillage' the wreck by Gavin Robinson, DUP MP for Belfast East, where the Titanic was built.

Mr Robinson told The Telegraph: 'I think it's important that we get behind government and make sure that there are robust efforts in place that would frustrate the efforts of those who want to simply profiteer.

'The idea that a vested connection would warrant pilfering and pillaging what is essentially a tomb to the sacrifice to those who were aboard Titanic, I think it's entirely misguided.'

Robinson last week slammed plans to cut open the hull of the Titanic and salvage the Marconi wireless in defiance of a new landmark treaty between the US and UK to protect the iconic shipwreck.

The agreement will give both nations the power to grant or deny licences to enter the remains and to remove artefacts found outside the hull before the wreck disappears forever.

---