Titanic will be gone by 2028
-
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(October 06, 2009 08:49 PM)
Well, do you mind looting pyramids for their artifacts? That's a tomb. What about the
Andrea Doria
? Thousands of items have been removed from that vessel, which carried 40 or more people down with her. As I wrote a couple of years ago, right or wrong, this sort of thing has always gone on. Where do we draw the line?
As to your specific question, again, where do you say "stop"? Other "war graves" not only from both world wars but dating back thousands of years have had articles removed from them. Why single out these two vessels or any? Now I agree, I can't see any reason to take anything from either
Hood
or
Bismarck
, and think they should be left alone, but that's a call based in part on the historical information that might be gained from removing an item from either ship, which I think is limited. But let's face it, most sunken ships can be termed "graves", even if somewhat inaccurately or hyperbolically, and few people oppose retrieving artifacts from them. How does one make an exception for
Hood, Bismarck
or
Titanic
, but not others? Perhaps you personally apply this philosophy to all ships, and if so I commend you for your consistency, but it's a tricky issue with, to me, no clear resolution.
I think respecting the wreck, and not disturbing any bodies or remains, is the paramount thing. The families of the sunken Great Lakes freighter
Edmund Fitzgerald
agreed to have the ship's bell brought to the surface but otherwise want the wreck left alone. Since it really is the site of the bodies of all (or nearly all) of the crew that perished, and there is little of historic interest aboard the ship itself, this solution seems fair. But not all wrecks are so neatly dealt with. Even where artifact-retrieval isn't an issue, sometimes a ship is raised or dismembered, or items brought up, because of the need to investigate the cause of its sinking, or other scientific or technical considerations. The Russian submarine
Kursk
was raised to retrieve the bodies, but after these were removed would the sub constitute an inviolable "grave"? I don't think there's a black-and-white policy applicable in all instances. -
The_Dying_Flutchman — 16 years ago(October 07, 2009 08:48 AM)
From what I know of sunken ships that went down long ago, human remains have long since been devoured by the salt water as they do not last more than a few decades if even that long. As an underwater archaeologist enthusiast this is where my knowledge comes from.
What is the sound an imploding pimp makes? -
caronia30 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 04:03 AM)
I was just giving Hood and Bismarck as examples, as the law stands its illegal to loot military wrecks like to afore mentioned ships.
Unfortuantly ships like the Titanic and Lusitania are not covered by that law.
From what Ive heard most people who raid the Titanic do so out of personal gain, that it what I have the problem with and dont get me started on that couple who got married in a sub after the film came out (yes I know its slightly of the point but its all linking to the fact that its destroying the Titanic.)
I agree that its not black and white.. i suppose there is a massive difference between millenia old tombs and ships which sank a matter of years ago. -
chimaera1249 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 06:47 AM)
Actually, the
Titanic
is protected. There are treaties between the US, Britain, Russia, and some other countries that are designed to protect the wreck and limit the expeditions down there. As it is right now, it is illegal to remove items from the actual ship (debris field is fair game), and it is illegal to sell anything recovered. Don't know about the
Lusitania
.
I don't think many of the trips to the
Titanic
are personal trips. Its very expensive to travel to the wreck and there are only a handful of submarines that can even descend to the depth the
Titanic
sits at, all of which are in government control (such as the Russian
MIR
's) or owned by research institutions (such as Woods Hole). This isn't to say there are
some
personal trips, because I'm sure there have been some, but I don't think its as prevalent as you think/heard. -
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 11:02 AM)
I don't know whether the
Lusitania
is protected either, but the British government went crazy when early explorations of the wreck were made, even though there was little they could do about them. From what I heard it had nothing to do with "disturbing the site" or respect for the dead, but rather for national security reasons translation: fear of national embarrassment, since there's been little of national security concerns stemming from events of World War One for decades. Rumor says they're worried someone might turn up evidence that the ship was carrying munitions or other contraband in violation of US neutrality, or some other such embarrassment. Whether this is accurate or not, the British have always been touchy about this wreck, which of course now lies outside their jurisdiction, off Irish waters. In fact, didn't they successfully stop an expedition as early as 1954 or so? It seems to me I heard such a thing long ago. In any event,
Lusitania
is an interesting hybrid of war wreck and civilian ship disaster, which makes it uniquely different from, say,
Titanic
or
Bismarck
. And I also understand the wreck is now in very bad shape and virtually inaccessible (i.e., actually getting inside the hulk itself). -
caronia30 — 16 years ago(October 22, 2009 08:19 AM)
Doesnt suprise me about divers not getting into the Lusitania, I saw some pictures of her a few years ago, the wreck looks like a boomerang or something. I think thats how she landed on the seabed.
Thank you for the intellegent discussion, I dont get much chance to talk ships, no one seems interested these days.
-
chimaera1249 — 16 years ago(October 22, 2009 01:26 PM)
Not only that, but the ship is draped by a ton of fishing nets that have gotten snagged on the wreckage. I was watching a documentary a few months back where a ROV was nearly lost because it got tangled in one. Its one of the most dangerous wrecks to explore.
-
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 10:48 AM)
Basically I think we're pretty much in agreement. Grabbing stuff from wrecks purely for personal gain is an unworthy practice. The salvagers' reasoning would say that (a) they had to recover their expenses (but then why do it at all, since profit remains a principle, if not sole, motive, and they certainly don't stop making profits after recouping their costs?), and (b) that but for their efforts these things would remain hidden from the world.
Yet even here, it's not entirely a good/bad issue. Does it serve a purpose for items of genuine historical interest to remain hidden from sight and left to disintegrate in the deep ocean? As I said, I wish there was an easy answer applicable to all situations, balancing legitimate archeological and historical concerns with proper respect for the sites and the lives lost.
Maybe it's a case of simply "knowing" when something's being done that falls outside the bounds of propriety or legitimacy, vs. research and salvage that's being done for reasons of historical preservation and with the requisite respect for the wreck and its dead. An imperfect method, I grant you, but it might be all we can rely on common sense and a sense of decency and responsibility.