Human artifacts in the funnel cavity?

[drtheglob]

Someone else gave me this idea on a different forum.

The funnel cavity leading to the boilers would have been one of few partially enclosed space where likely around 100+ people died. So there would be a chance of seeing a lot of personal artifacts in there. However, it could arguably be challenging to get any exploration equipment in there. What do you think?

 

[Duck_Dur]

If I had to guess, there are most certainly human remains/artifacts down the funnels. The water suddenly rushing down into the flooded boiler room would have created a vortex that must have pulled down quite a few people.

 

[Bob Read]

If I had to guess, there are most certainly human remains/artifacts down the funnels.

Since the Titanic wreck was discovered in 1985, I do not recall any discovery of human remains. There have been many recovered artifacts of items owned by humans but no bodily remains.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

I do not recall any discovery of human remains. There have been many recovered artifacts of items owned by humans but no bodily remains.

I think, however, that we have to accept that many of the personal items among the artifacts were originally associated with bodies which have since decomposed. The main example would be the numerous paired shoes and boots described in the original Robert Ballard exploration as the "field of boots". These probably represent the original resting place of numerous bodies of which the only remaining evidence is the tanned leather, which is very resistant to decomposition.

 

[Bob Read]

I think, however, that we have to accept that many of the personal items among the artifacts were originally associated with bodies which have since decomposed. The main example would be the numerous paired shoes and boots described in the original Robert Ballard exploration as the "field of boots". These probably represent the original resting place of numerous bodies of which the only remaining evidence is the tanned leather, which is very restant to decomposition.

Any item originally used or worn by by humans is an artifact but not human remains. Where some of the artifacts exist are no doubt the final resting place of humans. Personally I don’t consider locations without human remains to be graveyards.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

Personally I don’t consider locations without human remains to be graveyards.

I suppose they are in a strict sense but the question is whether, in the absence of any actual human remains, disturbing them counts as 'desecration'. I personally agree with you that in that sense they are not.

This is a question that very frequently arises for archaeologists excavating old burial sites. (I've heard all the different angles on it from my wife, who is involved in analysing ancient textile remains.)

 

[Bob Read]

I suppose they are in a strict sense but the question is whether, in the absence of any actual human remains, disturbing them counts as 'desecration'. I personally agree with you that in that sense they are not.

This is a question that very frequently arises for archaeologists excavating old burial sites. (I've heard all the different angles on it from my wife, who is involved in analysing ancient textile remains.)

This question takes on the character of a religious discussion. There is very little middle ground to be had. I try to avoid the spiritual aspects at all cost. There seems to be no upside.