Ocean experts have long debated whether artifacts from the world’s most famous shipwreck should be retrieved for exhibits that help people better understand the Titanic tragedy or whether it should be left untouched in the depths of the sea as a monument to the more than 1,500 people who were lost. their lives. James Cameron, best known for his 1997 film “Titanic,” sees himself as negotiating a middle course in this complex and often emotional dispute.
Mr. Cameron dived into the wreck 33 times from 1995 to 2005, giving him a window into its condition and likely fate. His view is timely as the United States government has recently sought to contain the destruction, raising questions about whether a company that has recovered more than 5,500 artifacts will be allowed to collect more.
Mr. Cameron’s views are also deeply personal. He has often debated the retrievals of Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French submariner who died in June while descending from a shipwreck on the Titan submersible. Mr. Nargeolet also led underwater research for RMS Titanic Inc.the company that holds the exclusive rights to salvage the ship and its artifacts.
Recently answered Mr. Cameron fielded questions via email from The New York Times about his views on the recovery, the future of the Titanic 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 found significant damage to thin-walled structures such as the deckhouse (the uppermost deck above the boat deck) and the forward mast. It was intact (in its collapsed position) in 2001 but partially collapsed in 2005. New imaging by the Magellan company in 2022 shows it fully collapsed and damaged.
However, we did not find any significant damage to most of the wreckage, such as the hull plates. Their steel is one and a half inches thick. I believe the plates will still be around for another two centuries at least.
What about damage to visitors? Is there anything obvious?
Based on my experience maneuvering around the wreck, and landing on top of it, submersibles are useless. Above, a submersible weighs several tons but below that, to fly around, it must be neutrally buoyant, which means it touches down with only a few kilograms of force.
Moreover, anything humans do is insignificant compared to the relentless destruction caused by biological activity, which continues year after year. The Titanic was eaten by living colonies of bacteria. They love it when people drop giant piles of steel into the deep ocean, which we do regularly, especially in wars. It is a feast for them.
On the Titanic artifacts, you describe yourself as a centrist between preservationists like Robert D. Ballard and salvors like Paul-Henri Nargeolet, who died in June on the Titan submersible. What if?
On the one hand, I think it’s good to recover artifacts from the debris field. When the Titanic split in two at the top, it looked like two huge piñatas. Across square miles, we see plates and wine bottles, suitcases, shoes — things people carry, touch and wear.
Which humanizes the story and reminds us that tragedy has a human face. Many artifacts have been recovered that poignantly connect us to this history — like the bell from the crow’s nest that lookout Frederick Fleet rang three times when he first saw the iceberg. Today, millions of museum visitors see it with their own eyes. I played it myself. And there are so many examples of Titanic beauty — fine china, beaded chandeliers, the cherub statue from the Grand Staircase. It is the continued public interest in these matters that keeps history alive, today, 111 years after the sinking.
One gray area that leaves me torn is whether we should retrieve the artifacts from within the bow and stern sections. One case I found compelling was the recovery of the Marconi column. This wireless system sent an SOS signal that brought the rescue ship Carpathia to the Titanic’s exact coordinates, and probably saved the lives of over 700 people.
Titanic’s wireless set was unique, very different from others of its time. I flew my little remote controlled cars in to check out the Marconi rooms, so we knew where everything was and we could do computer reconstructions.
But actually putting that instrument on public display would be very exciting for millions of museum visitors. If it can be recovered without any damage being done to the external appearance of the wreck, I am in favor, for that part of the ship is rapidly deteriorating and in a few years the Marconi column will be buried deep within the ruins, which cannot be recovered. .
So anything?
Where I personally draw the line is changing the appearance of the wreck — like raising its iconic bow (where Jack and Rose stood in the film) or removing the powerful anchors or taking the bronze telemotor from bridge where Quartermaster Hitchens desperately turned the ship around. tire trying to avoid the iceberg. All of these recoveries have been discussed by someone at some point in the past quarter century. I think we shouldn’t take anything from the bow and stern sections that would damage them. They must stand as monuments to tragedy.
You know Mr. Nargeolet. Do 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 catching up on our Titanic videos and comparing notes. He recovered many of the artifacts, like the crow’s nest bell, which I think is moving around in various exhibits around the world.
That said, I disagreed with him about some of his plans to recover things like bow anchors, although it was always a friendly discussion. I’m glad some of those plans didn’t come to fruition.
In 2017, you joined Dr. Ballard and the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London, in an unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Titanic’s collection of artifacts and move them to Belfast, where the ship was built. Why? And would you try again if the RMS Titanic declared bankruptcy again?
Our concern then was that the collection might be bought by a wealthy private collector and disappear from public view. These artifacts belong to the world, as part of our shared cultural heritage — our collective history — and artifacts help keep that history alive and the tragedy felt. But if they can be seen, and emotionally felt, through public access. If the collection is again in jeopardy, ultimately, I hope to have a voice in keeping it accessible to the public.
What do you make of the federal government’s recent efforts to take control of the Titanic?
The Titanic lies in international waters. I am sure this rivalry will continue indefinitely.
Do you think the Titan disaster will have an effect on Titanic’s guests?
Do I believe this will stop people from wanting to witness the Titanic in person? Definitely not. Human curiosity is a powerful force, and the urge to go and witness with one’s own eyes is very strong for some people, myself included.
But citizen explorers should be more discerning about who they dive with. Is the sub fully certified by a recognized agency? What is the safe operating record of the submersible company? These are the kinds of questions they need to ask.
Dive again?
I’ll get into a sub tomorrow — if it’s certified, like Woods Hole Oceanographic’s storied Alvin sub, or the subs made by Triton submersibles. But no one is in a hurry to do anything. That familiar image of the bow will still be there, as ever, for another half century at least.
