Re The Titanic
 
     As in the U.S., an archaeological site here in Canada is defined as
     being at least 50 years old so the Titanic fits that definition.
     Where the problem comes in is that, by international convention, the
     Titanic was designated an international cemetery and, therefore, off
     limits to any kind of archaeological or salvage operations.
     Obviously, there are a few people out there that have no respect for a
     cemetery, preferring to salvage artifacts and parts of the ship for
     "scientific" purposes.  As far as I am concerned, doing more than
     photographing the wreck of the Titanic is tantamount to a group of
     people entering Arlington Cemetery and beginning to remove some of the
     headstones and retrieving coffin components for "analysis."  Respect
     for the dead in the case of the Titanic, in my opinion, far outweighs
     any "scientific" data that may be salvaged from the wreck (such as the
     effects of seawater on metal, the excuse for salvaging pieces of the
     hull).
 
     Karlis Karklins
     Sr. Material Culture Researcher
     Parks Canada
 
 
 
 
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: The Titanic
Author:  HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]> at INTERNET
Date:    7/31/95 11:20 AM
 
 
   We have been having a rather odd discussion over on SUB-ARCH about the
Titanic. Several people over there are insisting that it is not an
archaeological site.
   When is a historical archaeological site too recent? (Yes, I know about
Bill Rathje's garbology studies, I have even participated, and it took my nose
a week to recover.) IMHO, both the Titanic and the recent Japanese sub that
has been found (the I-52) can be considered archaeological sites.
 
Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
PHONE: (602) 965-4579              FAX: (602) 965-9169
[log in to unmask]  Owner: HISTARCH, SPANBORD, SUB-ARCH