REgarding the Titanic issue:
Leslie C. Stewart-Abernathy wrote:
 
>Of course the Titanic is a site, defined as the location of human
>activity.
 
The only problem with the Titanic that is different from the rest of the
sites is that it lies in international waters and is not covered under any
enforcable legislation. Thus the international museum community (ICMM) (or
at least some of them) are looking at the issue of controling the trade in
artecacts from sites in international waters by setting up laws that
prevent the entry of material in the country and preventing the salvors
operating from their countries. The Titanic and other vessels in
international waters can be owned by someone who is either the original
owner, the insurance company that paid the owner compensation and thus
aquired the rights, and heir to the fromer or someone who has bought the
rights to the site. The international community can claim sites are war
graves, or grave sites, they can have informal agreements not to disturb
sites. However the bottom line is if someone goes to a site and salvages
material form the site, it is my understanding that this is almost
impossible to control, because there are no appropriate laws that can be
applied. Obviously in territorial waters the situation is different.
 
Jeremy Green
Department of Maritime Archaeology
Western Australian Maritime Museum
Cliff Street
FREMANTLE WA 6160
[log in to unmask]
(61-9)4318440
(61-9)3355351 fax or (3357224)
See us on the WWW at http://mm.wa.gov.au/Museum.html