Ocean experts have long clashed over whether artifacts from
the world’s most famous shipwreck should be retrieved for exhibits that could
help people better understand the Titanic tragedy or whether they should be
left untouched in the sea’s depths as a monument to the more than 1,500 people
who lost their lives. James Cameron, known for his 1997 movie “Titanic,” sees
himself as negotiating a middle path through this complicated and often
emotional dispute.
اضافة اعلان
Cameron dived 33 times to the shipwreck from 1995 through
2005, giving him a window on its condition and likely fate. His perspective is
timely because the U.S. government recently sought to exert control over the
wreck, raising questions about whether a company that has recovered more than
5,500 artifacts will be allowed to gather more.
Cameron’s views are also deeply personal. He often debated
the retrievals with Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French submariner who died in June
while descending to the shipwreck in the Titan submersible. Nargeolet also
directed underwater research for RMS Titanic, the company that holds the
exclusive salvage rights to the ship and its artifacts.
Cameron recently answered questions by email from The New
York Times about his recovery views, the Titanic’s future and the Titan
submersible. This conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Did you see signs of natural decay during your 10 years
of Titanic dives?
We’ve seen significant deterioration to thin-walled
structures such as the deckhouse (the uppermost deck above the boat deck) and
the forward mast. It was intact (in its fallen position) in 2001 but partially
collapsed in 2005. New imaging by the Magellan company in 2022 shows that it
has completely collapsed and broken open.
However, we’ve not seen any significant deterioration to the
vast majority of the wreck, such as the hull plates. Their steel is one and a
half inches thick. I believe the plates will still be standing for another two
centuries at least.
How about damage by visitors? Anything obvious?
Based on my experience maneuvering around the wreck, and
landing on top of it, the submersibles do nothing of significance. Up top, a
submersible weighs several tons, but down there, in order to fly around, it
must be neutrally buoyant, which means it touches down with only a few pounds
of force.
Besides, anything humans do is trivial compared to the
relentless deterioration caused by biological activity, which goes on year
after year. The Titanic is being eaten by living colonies of bacteria. They
love it when humans drop giant piles of steel into the deep ocean, which we do
with some regularity, especially in wars. It’s a feast for them.
On the Titanic’s artifacts, you describe yourself as a
centrist between preservationists such as Robert D. Ballard and salvors such as
Nargeolet. How so?
On one hand, I think it’s good to recover artifacts from the
debris field. When Titanic broke in two at the surface, it became like two
great pinatas. Over square miles, we see plates and wine bottles, suitcases,
shoes — things people carried with them, touched, and wore.
That humanizes the story and reminds us that the tragedy has
a human face. So many artifacts have been recovered that poignantly connect us
to this history — like the bell from the crow’s nest, which was rung three
times by lookout Frederick Fleet when he first spotted the iceberg. Now,
millions of museumgoers can see it with their own eyes. I’ve even rung it
myself. And there are so many examples of Titanic’s elegance — fine china,
beaded chandeliers, the cherub statue from the Grand Staircase. It’s the
ongoing public interest in these things that keeps the history alive, now, 111
years after the sinking.
A gray area that leaves me torn is whether we should recover
artifacts from inside the bow and stern sections. One case I find compelling is
recovery of the Marconi set. This wireless system sent the SOS signal that
brought the rescue ship Carpathia to Titanic’s exact coordinates, and arguably
saved the lives of over 700 people.
The Titanic’s wireless set was unique, very different from
others in its day. I’ve flown my tiny remotely operated vehicles inside to
survey the Marconi rooms, so we know where everything is and have done computer
reconstructions.
But to actually put that instrument on public display would
be very moving for millions of museumgoers. If it could be recovered without
any harm done to the outer appearance of the wreck, I’d be in favor, because
that area of the ship is deteriorating fast, and within a few years, the
Marconi set will be buried deep inside the ruins, unrecoverable.
So anything goes?
Where I personally draw the line is changing the look of the
wreck — such as raising its iconic bow (where Jack and Rose stood in the movie)
or removing the mighty anchors or taking the bronze telemotor from the bridge
where Quartermaster Hitchens desperately spun the ship’s wheel trying to avoid
the iceberg. All these recoveries have been discussed by somebody at some point
over the last quarter century. I think we shouldn’t take anything from the bow
and stern sections that would disfigure them. They should stand as monuments to
the tragedy.
You knew Nargeolet quite well. Did you have any
disagreements with him and his company’s approach to artifact recovery?
He was a legendary sub pilot and explorer, and we spent many
exciting hours going over our Titanic videos and comparing notes. He recovered
many of the artifacts, such as the crow’s nest bell, that I find so moving in
the various exhibits around the world.
That said, I disagreed with him about some of his plans to
recover such things as the bow anchors, though it was always a friendly
discussion. I’m glad some of those plans never came to fruition.
Around 2017, you joined with Ballard and the National
Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London, in an unsuccessful attempt to buy the
collection of Titanic artifacts and move them to Belfast, Northern Ireland,
where the ship was built. Why? And would you try again if RMS Titanic once
again declared bankruptcy?
Our concern at the time was that the collection could have
been bought by a rich private collector and disappear from the public’s view.
These artifacts belong to the world, as part of our shared cultural heritage —
our collective history — and the artifacts help keep that history alive and the
tragedy palpable. But only if they can be seen, and emotionally felt, through
public access. If the collection is put at risk again, down the line, I would
hope to have a voice in keeping it publicly accessible.
What do you make of the federal government’s recent
effort to exert control over the Titanic?The Titanic lies in international waters. I’m sure this
tussle will go on indefinitely.
Do you think the Titan disaster will have an impact on
Titanic visitors?
Do I believe it will stop people from wanting to witness
Titanic in person? Absolutely not. Human curiosity is a powerful force, and the
urge to go and bear witness with one’s own eyes is very strong for some people,
myself included.
But citizen explorers must be more discerning about who they
dive with. Is the sub fully certified by a recognized bureau? What is the safe
operating record of the submersible company? These are the kinds of questions
they need to ask.
Would you dive again?
I would get in a sub tomorrow — if it was certified, like
Woods Hole Oceanographic’s storied Alvin sub, or the subs built by Triton
submersibles. But there’s no rush to do anything. That familiar image of the
bow will still be there, as it is, for another half-century at least.
Read more Trending
Jordan News
