My interest with the Titanic
began in 1977 when I remember seeing a documentary on the idiot box
commemorating the 65th anniversary of the ship’s sinking. From there a mild curiosity has blown out
into almost obsession as I’ve read, heard and viewed as much as I possibly can
about the disaster. When people ask why,
I tell them they either get it or they don’t – but there are several reasons
really. The disaster changed the laws of
the ocean, in the way ships respond to distress calls. The disaster changed how ocean travel was
undertaken and viewed, no longer was the emphasis on speed, size or luxury, the
focus became more about safety as lifeboats with room for every person aboard
being regulation as opposed to optional.
The legal and ethical arguments that raged at the time, and still do
rage, the endless debate over who did what, who said what, who knew what and
who profited from the sinking is nothing short of fascinating. The conspiracies that abound – was it really
the Titanic that sank, or was it her sister ship, the Olympic? The division of class, as the rumours began
to spread about the first class passengers being taken off the ship first,
leaving third class passengers to supposedly die a horrid death, locked behind
steel doors as their escape routes were closed off by general order. The heroics of those left behind always
amazes me – I know that I’d not be able to stand there, on a sinking ship, and
wait for the inevitable. My survival
instincts would kick in and I’d be doing everything I could to save myself, but
not at the expense of a child. Indeed
there’s much myth, legend and fact surrounding the brief life of the Titanic to
be captivated with.
One thing I’m not captivated
with is the second disaster that has taken the ship since the discovery of the
wreck by Robert Ballard in 1985, and that disaster is a simple, and easily
avoided one, grave robbing. I can
understand, appreciate and fully agree with, exploration of the wreck and the
documentation and recording of artefacts as it only helps to provide a better
understanding of what happened 100 years ago.
However that didn’t happen as most people who dived upon the wreck have
only been too eager to bring up as much as they possibly can, but also to
deface the wreck by physically removing parts of the ship, as opposed to merely
bringing up loose items. This includes
parts of the boat such as the lookout nest, where the iceberg was spotted,
which was torn from the mast at some point in the 1990s, but the damage doesn’t
stop there.
When the boat went down, the
forces of nature, being the sheer size of the ship, the fact that it split in
two, the speed upon which it plunged to the bottom and the water pressure
ensured a large debris field was scattered.
By all accounts this field was spread over two and a half kilometres and
there it all remained, until salvage crews, sensing a fast dollar, started to
bring it all up. Ballard was keen to see
the ship remain undisturbed, but thanks to one of his French colleagues, the
exact co-ordinates were soon an open secret, with the result being a company,
titled RMS Titanic Inc, claiming ownership rights to the wreck and its
artefacts. The company didn’t waste time
and began to bring up as much as it could, both from the debris field and also
from the actual ship, including a portion of the ships hull. If, like me, you’ve followed this at length,
you’d probably remember a much heralded live show, hosted by noted historian
Telly ‘Kojak’ Savalas, which showed off items brought up from the boat, including
a safe that was opened, live on TV, to reveal…nothing, thus providing James
Cameron with one of the true funny moments for his movie. This set-back hasn’t daunted anyone, with the
RMS Titanic Inc cashing in on their ‘expeditions’ by creating no less than
eight travelling side-shows, all with genuine Titanic exhibits, which travel
the world and bring in lots of cash, of which none goes to the families of
those who perished on the boat. Part of
the exhibits is the grave robbing aspect – personal items. Clothing worn by people, who went down with
the ship, personal items that should either have been left where they fell, or
given back to descendants, are on display. That doesn’t sit well with a lot of
people – when someone profits from displaying items of the recently dead, then
that’s just grave robbing.
Now, before you accuse me of
hyperbole, allow me to put this into perspective. In 1912, the same year the Titanic sank, Bram
Stoker, the man who wrote Dracula passed away.
A year before, in 1911, Joseph Pulitzer and the author Howard Pyle, 1910
accounted for Thomas Crapper (the man who invented the flush toilet), composer
Albert Fuchs, Mark Twain, O. Henry, Artie Shaw, Edward VII, Florence
Nightingale and Leo Tolstoy. 1909 saw
Geronimo, Harthog and King Leopold II shuffle off the mortal coil. Pat Garrett (who hunted down Billy The Kid),
President Grover Cleveland and Russian composer Nikolai A Rimski-Korssakov all
popped their clogs in 1908 – you get where I’m coming from here. All of those people, and more, have been dead
for at least the same length of time as those on the Titanic, all are famous,
public figures and, with the exception of those who were famous before the ship
sank, such as John Jacob Astor and Isador Strauss, and those who have gained
fame as a result of the boat sinking, such as Captain E.J. Smith and the ships
designer Thomas Andrews, are all better known than the hundreds who perished in
the Atlantic on April 15, 1912. Bearing
that in mind, what do you think would happen if I started to dig up those
graves, or the graves of Wallace Hartley and other Titanic victims who are
buried in Newfoundland and other places?
You can rest assured that
I’d be arrested and locked up for defiling the dead, and rightly so. But if I wanted to start a travelling
exhibition showcasing the 1906 earthquake and resulting fire of San Francisco,
and started to dig up artefacts from the graves of those who died as a direct
result, the outcry would be enormous, not to mention the dubious legalities
that would ensure. So why can the RMS
Titanic Inc travel the globe showing off personal items of the deceased from
the ship? Because of a legal loophole.
![]() |
| Supposedly the actual iceberg that sank the ship |
I despise legal loopholes
like this one. The ship lies in
international waters, and the main failing of Robert Ballard was that he didn’t
claim the rights to the wreck. Had he
done that then the ship would have been protected, in his naivety he expressed
a desire for the wreck to be left undisturbed.
So much for that wish. As Ballard
passed on his claim, it allowed the RMS Titanic to swoop in and begin the
profiteering. Their argument would be
public interest and the cost of bringing this material to light, my counter
argument would be as above – there’s just as much public interest in any major
disaster, so let’s start digging deep and bringing it all to light, place it on
display and damn anyone who complains, or lays a claim. As it stands, if you’re a descendant of
anyone on the Titanic, and saw an item that belonged to your ancestor, you have
no claim on it – it’s not yours, it belongs to a company. They profit, you never will. As the wreck is now 100 years old it falls
under the UNESCO's Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage,
which means that it can no longer be looted, nor can items be sold or
dispersed. That protection comes a bit
too late, as anything of great value that could be recovered, has been
recovered. There is an aspect to this
that states that human remains must be treated with dignity, as we know there
have been no human remains found at the wreck, due to time, but the remains of
the humans, their clothing and personal items have been found, and we’ll never
know to what level of dignity that they’ve been afforded, if any at all.
![]() |
| Titanic body recovery |
Added to this is the
uncertainty of where the personal artefacts have been recovered from. Recovery ships were dispatched from
Newfoundland shortly after the disaster with the sole aim of finding bodies and
bringing them back. Some bodies were too
damaged to bring back though, due to injuries that had occurred during the
sinking. Those bodies that were damaged
beyond reasonable recognition, and remember, this was 1912, so identification
of a body was pretty much limited to photo or visual recognition, fingerprints
were out of the question and DNA was totally out of the question. With that in mind the rescue personnel had to
make an instant decision, to either bring the bodies back or not. Those bodies that could be recognised, either
via recognition (ie: faces not damaged) or by items of clothing, were put on
ice to be returned. Those bodies that
didn’t stand a reasonable chance of recognition were bagged up and given a
proper burial at sea. Thus it stands to
reason that a lot of those personal effects that people now see in displays
were taken from bodies that were buried at sea, and afforded proper rites by
the relevant priest. To defile a burial
at sea is akin to digging up a grave and cracking the coffin open. I fail to see where the dignity is in
that. Certainly the hulking wreck of
Titanic itself hasn’t been treated with much dignity, and the grave site, such
as it is, has been looted beyond comprehension, all to satisfy casual curiosity
of the general public.
And that is the second
tragedy of the Titanic.
![]() |
| An original index card detailing a body recovered from the Titanic. There's no record to know if the body was brought back or buried at sea, but compare that description with the shoes above. |

















5 comments:
Well said.
Didn't read all of this, but I will. I don't have an obsessive interest in the Titanic tragedy, but I do have a passing interest.
And in the sinking of the Lusitania a few years later. Something about the inevitability of fate in determining the life or death of the passengers on those two ships makes it a fascinating subject. Thanks, Daniel.
Thanks guys. I was a little apprehensive about writing my own view on the Titanic, mainly because so many people want those human artefacts on display.
But I've always felt a little disturbed by the fascination with the human artefacts that have been brought up and placed on display. What bothered me more was that, if you saw something on display that belonged to a family member of yours, you'd have no right to claim it. As a lot of people were relocating they took everything they owned with them, thus it might be the only item you'd ever be likely to own. Only it's now owned by a company, who are busily making money from it, and you get zero.
I have no idea why people find that to be fair, but if this causes even one person to think about it and perhaps question it, then I've done my job.
How do you feel about the diggings at Pompeii, or indeed any archeological dig?
Good question. I went and saw the Tutankhamen exhibition recently and found myself with the same kind of feelings - this was a grave that was emptied and I felt very odd looking at it. So, in that sense, yes, I do feel the same, when it comes to remains and personal items.
Post a Comment