The Titanic is quite an interesting issue. Like just about everyone there is a
50 year rule before something becomes and archaeological "relic" under the New
South Wales Heritage Act (1977). I have often thought that this is really a
convienent date and every 1st January the archaeologists should gather and
sing "happy birthday" to all the relics in NSW. The 50 year date prevents the
whole of Australia becomming one giant historical archaeological site. No
heritage legislation/administration could cope with that.
 
But remember ethnoarchaeology (or living archaeology) not to mention the
various garbage projects. Surely these are examples of modern archaeological
sites. (I was once caught train spotting by some prehistoric archaeologists my
claim that I was merely doing ethno-historical-archaeology seemed to go over
well.) But there is also an important point in all this, it is that
archaeology is a discipline. You can do archaeology studies of all periods
however often archaeology like the discipline of history is seen as referring
to a specific period of the past. What is important is whether a particular
site is significant or not.
 
The Titanic is a significant archaeological site in three areas. Firstly there
is the obvious associatial significance between the phycial evidence and the
historical events of the disaster. Secondly there is the ability of the ships
fabric and material culture to demonstrate significant aspects of the disaster
(the diferences between rich and poor, the davits, the damaged hull). Thirdly
ship must have some potential to answer relevent archaeological questions not
only relating to the wrecking but also as a major technological item, Whether
the Titanic is 50 or 100 years old is irelevent in this case the site is still
significant.
 
It also seems important to note that while the Titanic is a site is it an
archaeological site in the sense of being a locus of human activity or a site
understandable only or mainly through archaeologcal methods? I would think
that the first applies more than the latter but then why is it considered an
archaeological site rather than some other term? Is the Titanic really then a
heritage site understandable through a variety of disciplines (surely no one
is going to argue for a prurely archaeological approach to the site) and of
value to the world in general?
 
I also believe that some sites are of so little significance that they are
really not going to answer any relevent archaeological questions. The problem
is when new archaeological questions are asked and all the sites are gone. Or
do we unthinkingly influence (or filter) what research questions are developed
based on our knowladge of what sites are around thus creating a vicious cycle?
 
 
I dont have an answer
 
Iain Stuart
PHA Uni of Sydney