M
monica e. hall
Member
Well, I have to go with Paul on this one. Apart from the Marconi equipment, there is nothing down there that adds to our historical understanding of Edwardian life - evidence for that has been well documented, can be seen in still and moving images, is only just out of living memory, and their artifacts are still plentifully with us.
Interest is a different matter which, I suggest, is why researchers continue to conduct studies.
The Titanic piques interest for many reasons. If she had sunk on her 12th voyage, instead of her maiden voyage, then interest would probably have been less, as it would had it been packed with comparative nobodies (Empress of Ireland). And, in fact, interest faded fairly soon after the event until ANTR was published, and the film of it made in the 1950s. The discovery of the wreck and Cameron's obsession with it brought the story to a new and younger audience. But these were all really accounts of human lives and tragedy which is always of interest to us, naturally, but we are fairly selective about which we want to know more about.
And there is the most gripping aspect of the event which is, of course, that it seems almost totally unnecessary and avoidable, compared to which the Lusitania, the Wilhelm Gustlov, the Dona Paz etc. seem almost inevitable.
If you doubt this, try comparing the following propositions:
If only it hadn't been thundering along at 22 knots in an icefield...
and
If only we hadn't been at war...
So far as salvage goes, we are far from rational about it. Most shipwrecks are grave sites, though most no longer have any skeletons on them as they don't last long in the sea. Nobody is in the least bit bothered about rootling about in, and salvaging, stuff from Roman, Greek, medieval, or indeed, any wreck which is beyond living memory or photographic record. Which makes those sites of genuine historical interest, of course, because they can tell us about life which we have never experienced and have a patchy record of.
I understand the interest of the Titanic as well as anyone here, but I don't think we need to romanticise it as genuinely historical or fulminate about plundering a 'sacred' grave site. It's more sociological interest than anything else - except the Marconi Room. And there's nothing wrong with that because it has led to many wonderfully varied insights - such as the condition of immigrants from many nations, the status of women, hygiene problems posed by Edwardian clothing, communications theory, tensile strength of Edwardian steel etc.
These interests are all historical - in terms of their being in the past - but they aren't historical in terms of being exclusive sources of information.
Personally, if I'd died when the Titanic sank, and my shoes were recovered in the 21st century, I think I'd be quite pleased.
Interest is a different matter which, I suggest, is why researchers continue to conduct studies.
The Titanic piques interest for many reasons. If she had sunk on her 12th voyage, instead of her maiden voyage, then interest would probably have been less, as it would had it been packed with comparative nobodies (Empress of Ireland). And, in fact, interest faded fairly soon after the event until ANTR was published, and the film of it made in the 1950s. The discovery of the wreck and Cameron's obsession with it brought the story to a new and younger audience. But these were all really accounts of human lives and tragedy which is always of interest to us, naturally, but we are fairly selective about which we want to know more about.
And there is the most gripping aspect of the event which is, of course, that it seems almost totally unnecessary and avoidable, compared to which the Lusitania, the Wilhelm Gustlov, the Dona Paz etc. seem almost inevitable.
If you doubt this, try comparing the following propositions:
If only it hadn't been thundering along at 22 knots in an icefield...
and
If only we hadn't been at war...
So far as salvage goes, we are far from rational about it. Most shipwrecks are grave sites, though most no longer have any skeletons on them as they don't last long in the sea. Nobody is in the least bit bothered about rootling about in, and salvaging, stuff from Roman, Greek, medieval, or indeed, any wreck which is beyond living memory or photographic record. Which makes those sites of genuine historical interest, of course, because they can tell us about life which we have never experienced and have a patchy record of.
I understand the interest of the Titanic as well as anyone here, but I don't think we need to romanticise it as genuinely historical or fulminate about plundering a 'sacred' grave site. It's more sociological interest than anything else - except the Marconi Room. And there's nothing wrong with that because it has led to many wonderfully varied insights - such as the condition of immigrants from many nations, the status of women, hygiene problems posed by Edwardian clothing, communications theory, tensile strength of Edwardian steel etc.
These interests are all historical - in terms of their being in the past - but they aren't historical in terms of being exclusive sources of information.
Personally, if I'd died when the Titanic sank, and my shoes were recovered in the 21st century, I think I'd be quite pleased.