The study confirming the risks faced by the Bayeux Tapestry

The French Ministry of Culture held a press conference this morning via videoconference about the Bayeux Tapestry, with the prefect of Calvados, the Directorate-General for Heritage including Jean-François Hébert, the DRAC Normandy, and Philippe Bélaval, the special advisor to the President of the Republic for the proposed loan to the British Museum, all in attendance.

After recalling the logistics of the Tapestry’s transfer to its storage facility — an operation planned long in advance due to the museum’s renovation — the participants tried to convince journalists that since this transfer had gone smoothly, there was no reason for the one to London to go poorly either, implying that this move was simply the first stage in a well-rehearsed process. This is rather like saying that since someone climbed Montmartre, they’re fit to scale Mont Blanc. An obviously absurd reasoning, as we shall see.

Jean-François Hébert then claimed that each successive study aimed to progress toward the feasibility of the transport. This is clearly false, since in January, all the studies available today had concluded that it was impossible without great risk, even for a restoration, as shown in the video published by the Calvados prefecture on its YouTube channel in late January — since removed (see the article). Journalists repeatedly pressed for clarification on what would happen if the forthcoming study concluded that vibrations could not be avoided over long distances, and the speakers used every circumlocution possible to explain that this scenario simply was not on the table.

Let us recall that for several weeks — if not months — we had been requesting access to two studies marked “confidential.” We referred the matter to the CADA, and the association Sites & Monuments filed an emergency injunction (référé mesures utiles) to obtain them. While the prefecture of Calvados had been stubbornly refusing, the Élysée and the Ministry of Culture ultimately relented: the documents have now been made public and can be downloaded freely here.

However, the study referred to by Philippe Bélaval — “extremely precise, signed by several individuals,” dated early 2025, and said to detail “the recommendations to be followed regarding handling and transport” and which “absolutely does not say that the tapestry is untransportable” — this study… does not exist! It is, in reality, the documents from the call for tenders, particularly the *Cahier des clauses techniques et particulières* (CCTP), which is not a study at all but a technical specifications document [1]. And this document, of course, “absolutely does not say that the tapestry is untransportable,” since its purpose is precisely to select who will transport it.

The document titled “Feasibility Study for the Transport of the Bayeux Tapestry” — the one we were determined to obtain — does not say the Tapestry is untransportable either. Its full title, “Recommendations for the Packaging, Local Movement, and Cross-Border Transport to London of the Bayeux Tapestry,” shows that, once again, the aim was to explore how to move the work, with minimal risk, should the decision be made to send it to England. As we have repeatedly written, any work of art is technically “transportable” — the real questions are: at what risk, and in what state might it arrive?

It is also important to remember that the risks are not limited to transport alone, but also to the handling involved in exhibiting the work at the British Museum and then reconditioning it for the return journey. The document specifies that it concerns only the risks related to transport.

If the objective could not have been to conclude “no, it is not transportable,” it was indeed on the basis of this March 2022 study, as well as the June 2020 “condition report” and the October 2021 “preliminary study for the restoration of the Bayeux Tapestry,” that the decision was taken not to move the piece over a long distance — even for restoration. And rightly so: all these studies demonstrate that the risks involved are substantial, and that current knowledge does not allow for safe transport, contrary to what we are being led to believe.

From page 5, the objective of the 2022 study is clearly stated: it is to “outline the theoretical modalities [...] in view of a cross-border transport of the Bayeux Tapestry between the Bayeux Tapestry Museum and a London museum.” The next page confirms this: “theoretical recommendations.” The authors even add: “We feel it is imperative to warn the reader that the solutions presented in this study have not been tested in laboratory conditions or validated through prototyping.”

On page 8, the authors remind us of a key point from the 2020 condition report: “the conservator-restorers highlighted the major risk of worsening tears and fibre breakage.”

On page 11, the various risks the Tapestry would face during prolonged transport are listed:

– Shocks, first of all, which may be caused by many events, notably by “a fault in the road (sudden change in level, pothole, etc.)” — things that, of course, don’t exist on French and British roads… The document details the risks caused by shocks: “If the energy generated by a shock exceeds a critical threshold specific to the transported work, immediate damage may occur: structural fractures, tears, material loss, etc.”

– Vibrations. It is stated that “unlike a shock, which is a mechanical constraint applied over a short time, a vibration is repetitive and may cause significant damage from relatively low forces, below the resistance threshold of the material. This phenomenon is called fatigue.”

But the most revealing part comes on page 12: “At present, there is no vibration damping system directly applicable to long-distance transport of the Bayeux Tapestry. This requires a dedicated design mission prior to any transport and is not included in the scope of the present contract.”

This “dedicated design mission prior to any transport” has never been conducted — understandably, since until July, the plan was to keep the work in storage for the museum’s two-year renovation. It will therefore fall to the contractor awarded the new tender — due today, 22 September — to carry it out. It is hard to see how the responses can be analysed in less than two weeks, which, even in the most optimistic scenario, means the contractor would be chosen at the beginning of October. They would then have only three months to devise a vibration damping system — which does not currently exist — that could prevent shocks and vibrations harmful to the Bayeux Tapestry. During the press conference, it was stated that the study’s results are expected in early 2026, in January. Nothing in the current state of knowledge suggests that such a solution could be found — in fact, quite the opposite — and certainly not in such a short time.

This is all the more uncertain since — as stated on page 33 — “fatigue phenomena caused by vibrations are not yet well understood in the field of heritage, and studies that could predict the accumulation of micro-damage in ancient materials remain rare.”

It is further noted that “in the absence of a vibrational mechanical study, our team cannot provide a damping solution specific to the Tapestry.” This point is particularly interesting and is explored further on page 48: it is essential to define the “vibrational profile of the Bayeux Tapestry” before any transport operation. This “vibrational profile” is based on the following parameters:

“- Weight of the Tapestry at the time of removal, after the backing and temporary lining have been taken off,
– Weight of the packaging materials added to the transfer system (several materials may be considered),
– Natural frequency of the Tapestry mounted on the transfer system (which may be estimated through simulations based on replicas),
– Fatigue curve of the Tapestry, through simulated replicas or digital simulation (this requires fatigue data and long-term laboratory testing).”

All of this is, of course, very technical. But the key point is that this calculation is necessary and must notably be followed by a “Resonance test for each damping solution (individually and in context) to ensure that no resonance phenomenon could occur during transport.”

Resonance is the phenomenon that occurs when a system, subjected to external oscillations, is excited at a frequency close to its natural frequency. This causes a considerable amplification of movement and can lead to serious damage.

Now, this vibrational profile has not been calculated, and nowhere in the tender documents is there any requirement to calculate it (understandably, since this would require “long-term laboratory testing,” which is likely incompatible with the schedule). As for the “Cahier des clauses techniques et particulières”, it does not contain the word “resonance” a single time — even though this is a crucial concept for ensuring the safety of the Tapestry during transport. The feasibility study explicitly states on page 48 that it is necessary to conduct a “resonance test for each damping solution (individually and in context) to ensure that no resonance phenomenon could occur during transport.”

We raised the question of this “vibrational profile” during the press conference — to ask whether it had been studied (we know it hasn’t) and whether it would be (it is not mentioned in the specifications). The prefect of Calvados responded: “On [the matter of] vibrations, the answer is yes, with respect to the current transfer, because for the longer transfer, that is the subject of the study mentioned by the DGPAT.” Evidently, the prefect has no idea what a vibrational profile is (which proves he has not read the studies — or retained nothing from them). He seems to believe there is one vibrational profile for short journeys and another for long ones…

A simple analysis of this document therefore confirms what has been stated repeatedly: transporting the Tapestry over a long distance is extremely risky. There is still no vibration damping system suitable for it. There is no certainty that one can be found, especially not within three months. And some of the critical tests and measurements are not even scheduled to take place within the very limited time remaining.

The Tapestry is in serious danger. There is still time to put a stop to this madness and to sign the petition.