Bayeux Tapestry: a dry run that tests nothing

« The question, for the assembly present in Bayeux, showed [that the debate on the advisability of lending the work], belonged to the past. » Thus concluded an article published in Le Figaro on 18 April last. The journalist had been invited to attend the departure of the « dry run » of the Bayeux Tapestry. Strangely, we were not invited! What is certain, however, is that the controversy is obviously not over.
The revelations we can make in this article show, on the contrary, that it should be reignited. Thanks to a source close to the case, whose name we will obviously not disclose, we were able to obtain a “confidential” document that demonstrates the folly of this project and the recklessness of Emmanuel Macron, the Ministry of Culture and the British Museum. It is the “interim report” presenting the results of the first dry run, in February 2026, a “full-scale transport test”, between Bayeux and London. A second test, on 15 April (the one mentioned by Le Figaro), will give rise to a second report, which does not yet appear to have been finalised.
Let us clarify, something Le Figaro was unaware of, that the crossing of the Channel will indeed be made by Eurostar, in a lorry which will travel by road and motorway to Calais, then by road again to London. Let us also clarify that the transport of the work is scheduled, if it takes place, for next July.

Specific characteristics, but unknown

But what exactly does this first report say, the reading of which is revealing on all counts?
We learn (p. 4) that: “The objective is not only to ‘measure’, but to qualify risk, to assess the effectiveness of protection systems and to produce validated protocols enabling reproducible and documented transport.” The problem is that the study neither measures risk nor qualifies it, since the conditions under which the test is carried out do not allow it.
Indeed, the maximum vibration threshold not to be exceeded is defined as 2 mm/s (2 millimetres per second). This figure is entirely arbitrary, since it is the one generally used by specialists for artworks, especially paintings. But the Bayeux Tapestry is not a painting, of course. And after stating this vibration level, the following is written (p. 6): “However, the Bayeux Tapestry presents a mechanical configuration and specific vulnerability mechanisms (very large textile work, interaction with the transfer system and the crate), making any direct transposition uncertain. In accordance with the 2022 feasibility study, this value must therefore be used as a starting hypothesis and be adjusted following instrumented tests and additional mechanical tests intended to characterise transmissibility and the levels of deformation actually undergone by the work. These tests were not carried out prior to the present study because the Tapestry has been stored in its reserves since September 2025, and is therefore inaccessible.”

Let us translate: a vibration threshold is defined, but this threshold, according to the experts who wrote the report, has no real value since it concerns a work with highly specific characteristics. It would need to be refined through tests carried out on the work itself. Which is impossible, since the Tapestry is stored and inaccessible. Let us add that it will remain inaccessible until its departure. What, then, is the point of two dry runs intended to measure vibrations when it is not known whether the work can withstand them? The answer is simple: these dry runs are smoke and mirrors.

An unrelated facsimile

This is all the more true as they are carried out using a “facsimile”. But what is this facsimile for? The answer should be: to observe how it reacts to transport. Yet this is not the case: it was in fact impossible to create a facsimile with the same physical properties as the Tapestry, since these are not known, as they themselves write.
They confirm this by stating (p. 91) that: “The purpose of the facsimile is to carry out all transport tests in dry run conditions, while getting as close as possible to the parameters of the real Tapestry” but “For its manufacture, it was impossible to reproduce the degradation and vulnerability of the Bayeux Tapestry. We therefore knowingly used modern fabrics.” Moreover, “A linen canvas (like the embroidery backing) would have represented a disproportionate cost without providing significantly closer behaviour to the original.” Linen was therefore replaced with cotton.

Let us translate: a facsimile was used that has nothing in common with the Tapestry; no conclusion can therefore be drawn from it.

An incomplete test of the journey

As if this were not enough, the tests do not allow the entire journey to be tested, since arrival at the British Museum and unloading of the crate cannot be simulated. Indeed: “the unloading dock leading to the exhibition gallery [is] not available.” Thus, “at this stage of the study, our team is unable to formulate recommendations for the delivery of the Bayeux Tapestry to the British Museum in London. This option cannot be tested within the scope of this contract, due to the unavailability of the Sainsbury space.”

Let us translate: the journey is tested, but not in full.

Tight deadlines

The crate intended to contain the Tapestry also poses problems. Indeed, “The initial request was for the production of several crates in order to test different vibration systems. It was decided at the first meeting with the DRAC that time constraints required a different approach, more efficient and economical in terms of materials and vehicle use.”

Let us translate: the haste with which this project was conducted prevented them from working as originally recommended in the initial request.

A turbulent journey

How did the test transport proceed? We learn from the report that while French roads (mainly motorways, in fact) are not too bad, “near border control zones, numerous speed bumps are present on the road. When possible, the driver tried to avoid these speed bumps to limit vibrations.” One will appreciate the “when possible”.
We also learn that “throughout the crossing, the truck engine must be switched off (Eurotunnel safety), as well as climate control. Given the short duration of this part of the journey (35 minutes), temperature and relative humidity in the trailer did not change.” Very well. But what would happen if, for one reason or another, the train stopped in the tunnel, which is obviously not an impossible scenario? Climate control could potentially be interrupted for several hours. With what consequences for the condition of the Tapestry? The report does not even consider this scenario.
Upon arrival in England, other threats await the work. Indeed (p. 64): “upon exiting the Eurotunnel, road quality is significantly poorer than on the French side. On part of the route, the road showed a disruption every 2–3 seconds. Approaching London, numerous road joints and potholes were recorded.”

Let us translate: multiple vibration factors linked to the journey objectively threaten the Tapestry.

Measurements that are useless because impossible to interpret

Finally, what about the measurements themselves? In the end, it matters little, since, as noted, they teach nothing, given that the characteristics of the Tapestry are unknown. And they themselves say so (p. 77), in a statement that one might think is a joke, were the subject not so seriously important: “A major limitation of this result [the result of vibration tests] lies in the fact that the mechanical properties of the Bayeux Tapestry itself are not known [1] with sufficient precision (e.g. effective stiffness, damping, fibre crimp state, degradation linked to ageing, etc.). Since these parameters govern the dynamic response of the tapestry and its sensitivity to fatigue, it is not scientifically robust to define an absolute ‘vibration damage threshold’ (in acceleration, displacement or PSD) that would be valid for the actual object.”

Let us translate: these vibration measurements cannot be interpreted because the properties of the Bayeux Tapestry are not known.
We had already seen this above; it is worth noting that they repeat it insistently, no doubt to protect themselves.

Regarding vibration measurements, Le Figaro stated that “the first test, organised in February, had allowed a reduction of [vibrations] of 96%.” 96% compared to what? We do not know. But the report, in reality, says nothing of the sort. It states: “The measurement results of combination 5 showed a reduction in packaging vibrations during drop tests. A further reduction in the number of WRI (weight resistance units) compared to configuration 5 allowed a 96% reduction in impact. However, transverse vibrations of the package remained problematic.” This therefore concerns a reduction in the impact of a 2 cm crate drop. Nothing to do with vibrations caused by transport. And even in the drop test, “transverse vibrations remain problematic.”

This report therefore in no way demonstrates that the transport of the tapestry — and one is not even speaking of its installation and removal in London — presents no significant risks for the Bayeux Tapestry, whereas all previous studies had shown that such risks were certain. On the contrary, it confirms all our concerns.
Article R. 622-57 of the French Heritage Law states that “if the conditions of transport or conservation and security on site are not satisfactory for the preservation of the object classified as a historic monument, the regional prefect shall prescribe the conservation works required prior to the transport of the object as well as the specific conditions of its transport and presentation.” The transport conditions are not satisfactory, and the regional prefect has obviously not prescribed any conservation works for the Tapestry, which is stored and inaccessible, as noted above.
Emmanuel Macron is putting at serious risk one of the most precious works of our heritage. But who is he to allow himself this, and how can the Ministry of Culture lend itself to such a scandal?
Once again, it is the association Sites & Monuments that is leading the legal battle on the ground. The administrative court has not ruled and has referred the case to the Council of State, which will judge in first and last instance. Given the time constraints, a procedure that is too long would reach its conclusion too late. We will of course keep you informed of developments in this case. In the meantime, it is always advisable to support the association in funding its actions, and to sign our petition.