I do not think the issue is that the Titanic is a grave (I doubt if 
any bodies are still in the wreck) but rather that it is an historic, 
underwater site. It should be explored but explored by professional 
underwater archaeologists. Such exploration should be based on a 
research design centered on the archaeological study of the early 
20th century, the resulting artifacts or other materials should go 
into a Titanic Museum where future scholars can study them and where 
the public can see them up close, and if the site is too deep for 
proper exploration it should be left alone until future researchers 
have the technology to reach it safely to do underwater archaeology, 
not artifact grabbing. None of the artifacts should be sold by anyone.

I think the "grave - cemetery" issue is a red herring. It is a 
question, rather, of expanding the horizons of historical archaeology 
(land or underwater) to recognize the 20th century, along with the 
15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as a full part of our subject matter.

Bob Schuyler

At 08:09 AM 8/16/2010, you wrote:
>This certainly continues to muddy the waters over what constitutes a grave
>and what is considered salvage. The "H.L. Hunley" seems to have expanded the
>possibility and now it appears it is creeping into other locations. I wonder
>when those over loaded German Army hospital ships that were sunk in the
>Baltic during World War II will be picked over and the graves of thousands
>ransacked? ----- Original Message -----
>From: "geoff carver" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 6:29 AM
>Subject: US firm awarded $110m for salvaging Titanic artefacts
>
>
> > Could have some interesting consequences:
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973009
> > I had thought the "Titanic" was supposed to be "off-limits" to salvagers,
> > but if it really is decaying this quickly, then there's not much point in
> > trying to argue for preserving it as a monument.