Bayeux Tapestry: a press conference confirming all our fears

Everything is under control. That is how one might describe the press conference organised today by the Ministry of Culture to present the arrangements for the transport of the Bayeux Tapestry. These arrangements were explained, albeit very briefly, since there was, unless we are mistaken, no mention of the crossing of the Channel through the tunnel, the lorry being loaded onto an Eurostar train. Yet this remains a secret at least as well guarded as that of the current storage location of the Tapestry, which is none other than the Musée Baron Gérard.

It was therefore a succession of self-congratulation and satisfied social niceties between French officials (the Minister of Culture, local elected representatives including Hervé Morin, President of the Normandy Region, and the new mayor of Bayeux, Arnaud Tanquerel, as well as Philippe Bélaval), and the English side, represented in particular by the ambassador in Paris (who did not speak) and Lord Peter Ricketts, “special envoy of the United Kingdom for the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry".
This assembly therefore rejoiced that nothing now stood in the way of the loan, the opponents — whom one understood, of course, since one is broad-minded — having only to step aside, since, as the Minister of Culture stated, “what has been achieved by the scientific, technical and heritage teams is quite simply remarkable”. That is why, she added, she had “found the suspicions of incompetence that some sought to spread particularly unfair”.

As we felt somewhat targeted by this remark, we wish to clarify that yes, there is indeed incompetence: that of the (ir)responsible actors who took this decision, first and foremost the President of the Republic. One may, of course, regret that certain textile conservators, after having warned of the serious dangers to which the Bayeux Tapestry would be exposed if sent to England, are now in charge of preparing this journey. Undoubtedly, they are doing everything possible to ensure it proceeds as well as possible. But the risks, considerable for a work unique both in nature, size and age, are very real. It is, moreover, rather striking to read in an article from Le Monde published this evening that one of these conservators, who had explained that transport was impossible without exposing the work to great danger, now declares herself “reassured”, but “concerned”. If she is concerned, it is clearly because in reality there is no certainty that the transport will take place under good conditions, as the first “confidential” report we were able to examine demonstrated.

Let us clarify two points, in relation to this previous article, which were explained to us during this press conference, and which are indeed “reassuring” on specific aspects. We were told that a breakdown in the Channel Tunnel, which might cause the train to remain longer than the standard 35-minute crossing, would not be harmful, as the crates can maintain the climatic conditions necessary for the conservation of the Tapestry for 48 hours. Noted. Furthermore, it was possible, during the second dry run in April, to simulate the arrival at the British Museum, which had not been tested in February. Noted.
But what is actually being tested? The final document, written after the second test run, does not change our previous assessment. On the contrary, it confirms it: we do not know what we are testing, since the reactions of the Bayeux Tapestry to vibrations are unknown: “In order to define a relevant threshold for the Tapestry, it would be necessary to conduct in-depth interdisciplinary research, in order to understand its fatigue mechanisms, to simulate its response to different vibratory environments (and thus different frequencies), to estimate the mechanical state of the various fibres depending on their location, etc. This study is not currently available and does not form part of the present contract”.
This observation is repeated, as in the previous document, several times, and one can even read that “in the context of a more in-depth study, future mitigation measures could be developed according to a gradual and scientifically based approach”. Yes, it would indeed have been desirable to have a “scientifically based” study of the Tapestry. Alas, that will not be the case..

This final document is available online on this page [1]. One might think this is a fine example of transparency from the Ministry. But a simple glance is enough to see that it is nothing but an illusion. Out of 128 pages, no fewer than 84 are more or less redacted (ill. 2), including 44 entirely (ill. 3), which represents overall more than half of the document from which nothing will be known! Only dates, photographs of the lorries (one wonders why), and routes appear to have been removed. It is clear that the redactions go far beyond this, and that if some compromising passages were not deleted, it is because we had already revealed their content in our previous article.

But there is worse still. After the end of the press conference, we questioned Cécilia Gauvin, who heads the group responsible for the technical studies that produced the report. We asked her, given that the technical characteristics of the Tapestry’s resistance to vibration are unknown, and that it has specific vulnerabilities, what was the purpose of measurements whose adequacy is not known. She replied that the methodology used was to “measure and quantify the vibratory environment linked to transport, which had not been done until now”. She added that “one must start somewhere”, and that it is necessary to conduct “research into the phenomena of damage by fatigue in works of art, especially during transport, but also during handling, as well as what happens from a climatic point of view, because we know that everything is coupled: vibration, temperature and humidity”. She continued: “the idea is not necessarily to create a new vibration threshold for the Bayeux Tapestry because we are unable to test a fibre to the point of rupture”.
And the conclusion is striking: “so, the idea is to be able, in the future, to use these data within fundamental research in order to develop general guidelines on the transport of textiles”.
And the conclusion is astonishing: “so, the idea is to be able, in the future, to use this data within fundamental research in order to draw up general guidelines for the transport of textiles”.

You have read correctly: the transport of the Tapestry is regarded by those implementing it as an experiment that will make it possible to advance knowledge on the transport of textiles.
As if this unique work (ill. 4), a thousand years old, fragile and irreplaceable, were a guinea pig on which one might experiment in order to advance knowledge on the subject!
Faced with our surprise, she insisted on clarifying what we had already understood from the documents: “No, but it is also about being able to rely at least on a context about which we can have certainties, even if we do not know the reaction of the tapestry; we can assume that if the context is bad, it will be bad for it.”

Let us conclude: since the technical characteristics of the Bayeux Tapestry are unknown, particularly regarding vibrations (the necessary study has not been conducted), the team in charge of transport is attempting to minimise risks as much as possible through technologies that are certainly highly advanced, but whose sufficiency to guarantee the safety of the work is unknown. They are doing what they can… All that remains is hope and crossed fingers. As I was also told: “there is an element of uncertainty, but it is minimal”. That is indeed very reassuring.