sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mary Rose, Mary Rose Trust, Vasa (ship)

Written: 01/10/2010

An Evaluation of the Recovery, Conservation and Display of the

Alan White

Abstract The following paper will evaluate the methods used to recover, conserve and display the of the Mary Rose. The methods used to recover the many varied artefacts will not be covered, but their conservation and display will be evaluated albeit in less detail than for the hull. Conservation is a complicated scientific procedure and only the basic methods used will be covered in this paper. The and future museums will also be discussed and evaluated.

Keywords Mary Rose, conservation, recovery, museum

Introduction

The sinking of the Mary Rose

The Mary Rose, named after Henry VIII's sister, Mary Tudor (Rule, 1986: 3) was built in between 1509 and 1511, and rebuilt in 1536 (Rule, 1982: 22-28). On the 19th of July 1545 as part of an English fleet opposing a French attack, she sank in near to the entrance of , Hampshire, England. Netting placed over the caused nearly the entire crew to perish, with reports of losses varying between 400 and 700 hundred lives (Dobbs, 2007: 1). The reason for her sinking is unknown, but may have simply been due to mishandling causing water to enter her gun-ports (Martin, 1987: 142).

Early attempts at recovery were abandoned and she slowly sank into the silts of the Solent (McKee, 1982: 36). , weather, bacteria and worm attack took their toll on the exposed section of the ship. The remaining section of the hull and artefacts were preserved in the silts of the Solent, leaving a 'time capsule' of life on board a Tudor (Martin, 1987: 142, Lister 2005: 81 and 86).

The

In 1966 diver Alexander McKee made a chance discovery of the position of the Mary Rose on an 1841 chart (Marsden, 2003: 29, McKee, 1982: 54). A number of years of tireless work resulted in the formation of the Mary Rose Trust, with the aim “to find, to record, to excavate, raise, bring ashore, preserve, report on and display for all time in Portsmouth, the Mary Rose”. In 1982 the hull was recovered and was witnessed by 60 million television viewers worldwide (Dobbs, 2007: 1, Lewis 2003: 51-59, Gaimster, 2003). The Mary Rose now rests in the Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth along with some 19,000 recovered artefacts, many of which can be seen in the Mary Rose Museum (Harrison, 2003: 63).

Raising the Mary Rose

Earlier attempts at recovery

The first attempts at raising the Mary Rose were carried out in the August, soon after her sinking. It appears she was so deeply embedded in the silt that an attempt to upright her had only succeeded in breaking a . On the 16th June 1836 working with his brother Charles

Written: 01/10/2010 discovered the wreck while removing snagged fishing nets, a number of artefacts were recovered. Although believed by many to have been destroyed, Alexander McKee led a team of divers in a new search for the wreck in 1965, resulting in her rediscovery in May 1971 by diver Percy Ackland (McKee, 1982: 34-42, Dobbs, 2007: 1, Martin, 1987: 142).

The difficulties of recovery

During the course of the excavations the decision was taken to recover the hull, this task was fraught with difficulties, due to the fragile and complex nature of the structure. When in the water the ship weighed approximately 45 tonnes but would weigh maybe six or seven times this when out of the water. Therefore there was a strong possibility that the hull would collapse under its own when lifted from the sea (Lewis, 2003: 51, Rule, 1982: 202). The only recovery previously carried out on this scale was of the 17th century Swedish warship the , which was virtually complete and sitting upright in calm water in Harbour, . The Vasa was raised using steel cables and pontoons, then moved into shallower water where she was excavated, the process took twenty months to complete (Franzen, 1961: 14-18, Bass, 1966: 63-66). In comparison only about a third of the Mary Rose remained, in a fragile condition and lying on her side (Lewis, 2003: 51, Rule, 1982: 202-205). Once exposed on the seabed the Mary Rose would be open to attack from micro-organism (aerobic bacteria, fungi etc.), macro-organism (wood borers) (Lewis, 2003: 51, Jones (ed.), 2003: 28-32)

The lifting plan and recovery

There were number of proposals put forward on how the hull and contents could be raised, these fell into two main categories. The hull, complete with its contents could be transferred to a wet dock then emptied, the other option was to excavate in situ and then move the hull to a land site. The option chosen was to empty the hull of its contents, stiffen it with steel braces and frames then lift it using nylon strops. On reaching the surface, the hull would be pumped out then transferred onto a steel support cradle on a barge for transporting to the shore (Lewis, 2003: 52, Rule, 1982: 210-212).

In mid-1982 the lifting plan was revised in favour of lifting the ship from the seabed using an underwater lifting frame (ULF). The hull and the ULF would be transferred whilst under the water onto a cradle lined with air bags. The entire arrangement would then be lifted to the surface, placed onto a barge then transferred to a . The decision to revise the lifting plan at such a late stage increased an already large workload (Dobbs, 2007: 3-4, Lewis, 2003: 53-54, Rule, 1982: 216). Suction on the seabed had been a concern when raising the Vasa and the same problem afflicted the Mary Rose (Franzen, 1961: 72). Undercutting of the hull to position salvage bolts had alleviated some of the problem, and a “peeling” technique would be used when lifting (Dobbs, 2007: 2, Lewis, 2003: 56). Decking planks, cabins and bulkheads were removed for safety reasons from the hull before recovery (Rule, 1986: 5).

On the 29th September 1982 everything was in place and around midnight on the 30th September lifting commenced. Once removed from the seabed the hull was transferred under the water, ready for lifting a week later, the time lapse was to avoid the spring tides. It was discovered when docking the ULF into the cradle that one of the legs had been bent. This was probably caused by the leg not clearing the seabed when transferring, after some debate the offending leg was removed. On reaching the surface it was noticed that the south-east lifting sling had been incorrectly positioned, this resulted in a sudden slippage, and fortunately no damage occurred. Once on board the barge a new leg was welded into place and the Mary Rose was towed into Portsmouth Harbour after 437

Written: 01/10/2010 years at sea. Having hovered near disaster the hull was transferred to a dry dock, this successfully completed the enormous and difficult task of recovery (Lewis, 2003: 54-59, Rule, 1986: 6-7).

Errors had occurred during the task of recovery, but the job had been carried out in poor visibility and some difficult decisions. Fortunately the steel and shackles used withstood the extra stresses put on them; this episode highlighted the importance of good quality equipment (Lewis, 2003: 57-58). The project had coped with the loss of experienced divers due to the , increased workloads and poor weather. The task of recovering the Mary Rose had been pioneering, the success of which was mainly due to an almost national effort and the flexibility and innovation of the lifting plan. The importance of a good underwater survey cannot be underestimated, this had allowed the structural engineers to successfully design the lifting frame and cradle. The Mary Rose had arrived at dry dock undamaged and could now be conserved (Rule, 1986: 7).

Conservation of the Mary Rose hull and artefacts

Site geology and preservation

The Eocene clays in which the Mary Rose sank had contributed to her preservation; these sediments provided free (anaerobic) conditions that protected her from micro-organisms and macro- organisms. If the ship had sunk onto the nearby flint gravels it is unlikely that she would have survived (Cronyn, 1990: 15, Jones (ed.), 2003: 22-27, Collins and Mallinson, 2003: 71-75)

The reasons for conservation

Reversibility is a desired effect of any conservation process, this is in the event that a new process emerges or additional conservation is required. Organic material such as , wood, textile, and leather can crumble to dust in a matter of a few hours if not conserved. Iron can last a few days or months according to size and density and bone, glass and pottery slowly de-vitrify if not conserved (Hamilton, 2000).

Conservation should begin as early as possible and some protection of the Mary Rose was provided on the seabed by covering the hull in plastic sheeting during seasonal breaks in excavation (Jones (ed.), 2003: 31). Each recovered artefact was catalogued and recorded, then 'first aid' was applied before carefully packing and transferring to shore (Rule, 1986: 12). It was of great importance that a plan was in place for the conservation of the hull and the artefacts that were recovered from the Mary Rose (Hamilton, 2000). It was decided to tackle this problem in conjunction with Portsmouth City Museum (Rule, 1982: 89-93).

Once on dry land bacteria and worm damage of the hull and wooden artefacts would occur within a short time, some recovered timbers and wooden artefacts were stored in a pond or wrapped in polyethylene sheeting (Jones (ed.), 2003: 32-40). Tanking a large ship though is expensive and impractical; after experiments on previously recovered timber, it was decided to spray the hull with very cold water to a film of 1mm thick. This treatment slowed the growth of micro-organisms and macro-organisms, and prevented the hull drying out and potentially collapsing. Spraying the hull with water forever was not practical and therefore a long term treatment was required (Lister, 2005: 95-96, Jones (ed.), 2003: 40-41).

Written: 01/10/2010

Polyethylene glycol and the conservation of the hull

The wood from the Mary Rose had swollen and weakened and had been attacked by micro- organisms and macro-organisms, therefore this influenced the conservation treatment. A number of tests were carried out on the Mary Rose timbers, these showed degradation corresponding with class I (44%), II (50%), and III (6%) of de Jong's scheme (Delgado, 1997: 265, McConnachie et al 2008: 30, McConnachie, 2003: 57).

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) had been used with some success on the conservation of the Vasa (Hamilton 2000, Mayol 1996, Grattan 2004). It was therefore decided to spray the hull of the Mary Rose with water until 1994; then from 1994 until 2003 the hull was sprayed with a of PEG 200 in water; from 2003 until 2010 the hull will be sprayed with PEG 2000. At the end of this process the hull will be coated with PEG 4000 then air dried until 2015. Different grades of PEG were necessary to ensure all voids were filled (McConnachie, 2003: 68-69).

Water spraying has slowed the growth of micro-organisms and macro-organisms and has had the added advantage of washing away harmful sulphur deposits and silts. Sulphur has caused a number of problems on the conserved hull of the Vasa, the build-up of which when in contact with iron and oxygen forms damaging sulphuric acid (Sandstrom et al. 2005: 2-7). Although the PEG treatment is a long process, it is a tried and trusted method of conservation which is relatively easy to perform. A spray treatment allowed the public to view the hull and the conservation process, which brought in much needed revenue. Research and work could also be carried out on the hull by turning off the sprays at certain times during the course of the day (Espuny, 2005: 4-9, Rule, 1986: 11).

The conservation of metal artefacts

Approximately 3000 metal objects were recovered from the Mary Rose. A number these iron artefacts were preserved in a concretion, once removed the corrosion process could resume (McKee, 1982: 85, Lister, 2005: 109). The conservators' aims were to stop the corrosion process, whilst leaving the artefacts shape and metallic structure unchanged (Barker, 2003: 77, Lister, 2005: 109).

The recovered iron artefacts posed the problem of corrosive chloride ions that had been absorbed from the sea water; if left untreated these artefacts would have to be displayed in extremely dry air. For practical display purposes the chloride ions needed to be removed, washing would take five years, and a process using electrodes would take two years. During these treatments the artefacts would continue corroding (Lister, 2005: 109-110). The method chosen involved the iron artefacts being heated to 850 degrees Celsius, a special hydrogen reduction furnace was used and the process took 1 week to complete. The metallurgical structure of the metal was changed during the treatment and therefore this method was not without its critics, although samples were taken before the conservation process (Lister, 2005: 110, Rule, 1982: 90-92, Read, 2002).

Many of the other recovered metal artefacts were more easily conserved. Copper was mechanically cleaned then the chloride ions were washed away using hot water for one month. Brass was mechanically or chemically cleaned using BTA and Modalene, before lacquering. Hydrochloric acid or the chemical EDTA was used to clean lead artefacts, and then a micro-crystalline wax was applied. Electrolysis was used to clean the bronze and pewter artefacts; water washing or hydrogen reduction was used on silver, and gold needed no treatment at all (Barker, 2003: 84-94, Lister, 2005: 111).

Written: 01/10/2010

The conservation of wood, leather, wool and ceramics

Hundreds of wood, leather, wool and ceramic artefacts were recovered from the Mary Rose. Textiles were carefully washed in water; since chemical washing could remove the natural dyes. All textiles were air dried, with some needing a post-drying treatment of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). The long term effects of CMC are unknown and therefore may cause future problems (Jones (ed.), 2003: 101-105). Well over 300 hundred individual shoes were recovered from the Mary Rose, these have been successfully treated using a 10% Bavon solution (Jones (ed.), 2003: 96- 99, Rule, 1982: 93). Content sampling of ceramic containers was carried out before cascade washing, drying and any reconstruction occurred. The sampling process avoided any valuable environmental evidence being lost (Watson, 2003: 109-113). Wooden artefacts were freeze dried after a PEG treatment (Rule, 1986: 12).

Excavation on the scale of the Mary Rose has presented a number of problems for the conservation team. Conservation methods have had to be agreed, in addition to the task of funding such an enormous project. Artefacts such as gold or environmental material (e.g. seed pods, fruit stones) have needed little in the way of conservation, in contrast the conservation of the hull has needed its own building and will take 34 years to conserve and will cost many millions of pounds (Jones (ed.), 2003: 1-4, Gardiner, 2003: 134-135).

Display of the Mary Rose hull and artefacts

The current museum and ship-hall

The problems of the Mary Rose Museum were rare; a place was required where a large collection of artefacts and a ship’s hull could be displayed and conserved. Following a defence review in 1981, it appeared likely that space would became available in the Historic Dockyard in Portsmouth (Harrison, 2003: 61-63).

After recovery the hull was placed in dry dock near HMS Victory, a temporary cover was constructed to provide suitable environmental conditions for conservation. Public viewing was possible from two galleries, but it must be remembered that the hull is in the process of being conserved and the continual spraying can create a foggy atmosphere. Condensation has also been a problem and occasionally the PEG would need cleaning from the windows (Harrison, 2003: 63-65, Delgado, 1997: 286).

The conserved collection is on display in a single skinned timber structure, this is not an ideal environment for fragile artefacts. The only practical solution was to provide the necessary environmental control into the display cabinets (Harrison, 2003: 65-66, Jones (ed.), 2003: 116-123). This was not an ideal solution because it placed constraints on the exhibition design and created low light levels in some of the cabinets. Unfortunately on occasion the cabinets have been known to condensate inside, causing additional viewing problems (Jones (ed.), 2003: 116).

The collection itself is outstanding, with thousands of original artefacts on display alongside some modern reconstructions where necessary. The display gives the visitor a good idea how the artefacts would have originally been used. Many of the artefacts look in excellent condition after conservation, although the PEG treatment has left a few of the wooden artefacts looking a little

Written: 01/10/2010 waxy. Although the conservators had few options the treatment administered to the iron has left it appearing unnaturally black. An environmental reconstruction explains how the ship was preserved and a small display tells the story of the excavation, recovery and conservation. The exhibition has been designed for a one and a half hour visit, with text taking no more than one hour to read, a short introductory audio-visual film is also included (Harrison, 2003: 65-66, Jones (ed.), 2003: 117, Rule, 1986: 16-38). Before the Mary Rose was recovered Britain had no major shipwreck museum (Marsden, 2003: 145).

The new museum and ship-hall

On the 20th September 2009 the hull of the Mary Rose was closed to the public, a new museum will open in 2012; the hull will be displayed in full in 2016 when conservation is completed. Unlike the current temporary arrangement, the new building will be built for the purpose of housing the hull and artefacts. The design of the building should sit comfortably in the historic dockyard, and will reflect the construction of the Mary Rose and will not look out of place alongside the neighbouring HMS Victory. The timber cladding on the new museum will be painted black, and carved with designs used by the crew of the Mary Rose to identify their belongings. A balcony will offer views across the dockyard (e-architect.co.uk, maryrose.org).

Inside the museum, galleries corresponding with the original deck levels will imitate the missing port-side of the ship with each gallery telling a different part of the Mary Rose story. Some of the artefacts will be placed in their original context in the reconstruction, bringing the display to life. The new exhibition will have atmospheric lighting designed give the feel of life aboard a Tudor warship. More than 60 per cent of the recovered artefacts will now be on display, with many unseen items added (e-architect.co.uk, maryrose.org). The new museum should provide an educational experience to a broad audience, where they can learn the story of the Mary Rose from sinking to recovery in a stimulating environment.

Discussion and Conclusion

Ethical and financial cost

The excavation and recovery of the Mary Rose has cost many millions of pounds, some of this money has come from donations and profits from the museum. The new museum will cost 35 million pounds and will require a 21 million pound grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The decision to excavate and recover the Mary Rose not only had financial, but also moral and ethical implications. The question therefore must be asked whether these concerns outweigh the cultural, social and military importance of a site (Jones (ed.), 2003: 27, maryrose.org, pbo.co.uk).

A pioneering recovery

Much of the work of the Mary Rose Trust has been pioneering. The method used to recover the hull was untested and has now set precedence for the recovery of ships in a similar condition. Although revising the recovery method added to a large workload, the use of multiple lifting wires had allowed a fair deal of control when raising the hull. This was important considering the problem of suction, and the multiple bolts had the added advantage of strengthening the hull. The original plan to use an internal framework may have distorted the waterlogged wood. Strains on the hull were kept to a minimum by transferring the hull onto a support cradle whilst under the water. Removing

Written: 01/10/2010 the ships contents before lifting had lowered the weight on the fragile hull and avoided any losses that would have occurred if the ship collapsed. Excavating before recovery allowed a study of the processes of burial after the Mary Rose had sunk (Rule, 1982: 212, Blot, 1996: 104, Lewis, 2003: 50-59).

The docking problems caused by the damaged leg and the slippage that occurred from the incorrectly positioned sling could hopefully be avoided in better working conditions. These errors highlighted the importance of using good quality equipment which was strong enough to withstand the additional strains. The Mary Rose Trust was working with cutting edge technology on a pioneering recovery, the success of which was due to the projects flexibility and the dedication of those involved (Lewis, 2003: 50-59, Rule, 1982: 205-206).

The reasons for raising the Mary Rose

Raising the Mary Rose has enabled a full study and record of the hull to be undertaken; this was not possible under the water due to the ships position on the seabed. Long term exposure whilst recording on the sea bed would have led to damage from currents and marine life (Marsden 2003 p. 145-146). Non diving specialists now have access to the ship; this knowledge would have been unavailable without recovery. An accurate record of the hull has been possible and the recovery of the Mary Rose has added to our knowledge of 16th century , a period from when no accurate drawings are available (Lewis 2003: 50-59). In 2002 the Ministry of Defence planned to dredge through the eastern end of the Mary Rose site, although these plans were subsequently changed. If the Mary Rose had been left on the seabed she may have been at future risk from dredging damage (The Mary Rose Trust).

Before the recovery of the Mary Rose it was normal practice in Britain to leave difficult to conserve objects, such as iron and shot on the seabed, with the more valuable items being recovered for sale. By recovering as much as possible from the Mary Rose site, information was gained that would have otherwise been lost by a partial recovery. For example by studying the guns and shot of the Mary Rose much was learnt about the fire power of the ship (Harrison, 2003: 60-68). Conservation facilities were available on the recovery vessel and onshore, the importance of this cannot be underestimated, as finds will start to deteriorate once uncovered on the seabed (Jones (ed.), 2003: 27).

Conservation

Once recovered, the benefits of spraying the hull with chilled water before treatment were numerous; it not only prevented the hull drying out, but slowed the growth of organisms and had the benefit of washing away silts and sulphur (Lister, 2005: 95-96). Conserving the hull with polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a slow process, but the long term effects are known. I therefore believe that the decision to use this form of treatment to be the correct one. Although the Vasa has had problems with sulphur attack after being conserved with PEG; the knowledge gained from this experience will hopefully help avoid problems with the Mary Rose (Lister, 2005: 97-98, Cronyn, 1990: 258). In 2003 only six of the thousand wooden objects conserved were showing signs of acid formation (McConnachie, 2003: 74).

Spraying the Mary Rose as opposed to dipping has had a number of advantages, work and research on the hull could be carried out, while the public could view the conservation process and therefore

Written: 01/10/2010 bring in much needed revenue to the project (Espuny, 2005: 4-9). Passive conservation, whereby a ship or artefacts are stored or left in situ until better methods of conservation are developed has been suggested for underwater (Cronyn, 1990: 256). Without genuine artefacts from real situations to work on, conservation methods would not advance at a desirable rate. The expertise gained from the Mary Rose is now being put to use on other projects such as the Iron Age boats from Fiskerton and Graveney (Jones (ed.) 2003: 2-3).

The thousands of artefacts recovered from the Mary Rose meant cost, time scale and space requirements needed considering when devising conservation treatments. The conservation of the iron artefacts was not without its critics, but placing a large number of artefacts in tanks for five years would have been impractical, the method chosen has been reliable and has allowed problem free public display (Read, 2002, Cronyn, 1990: 198-202, Barker, 2003: 81-83).

The display of the hull and collection

Environmental controls in the Mary Rose museum are currently achieved by the use of special cabinets and this has put constraints on the display. Whether in the current or new museum, the display of the artefacts will always be a balance between the needs of the conservator and the needs of the public. The educational value of the museum has to be achieved within the constraints of the environmental controls imposed (Jones (ed.), 2003: 116).

The construction of a new museum will remove some of the constraints placed on the display of the collection. The reconstruction of the missing section of the hull alongside the fully conserved Mary Rose will be a massive improvement on the current method of display. The visitors will be able to get closer to the ship with none of the viewing problems that the spraying has caused. Displaying some of the artefacts in their context within the reconstructed missing section of the ship will bring the display to life. This should achieve the aim of recreating the environment and atmosphere aboard the Mary Rose whilst telling the story of its sinking and recovery. Hopefully the problems of condensation can be rectified in the new museum.

The location of the new museum in the Historic Dockyard in Portsmouth is highly appropriate, being at the home of the and close to where the ship was originally built. It is believed that the black painted timber boarded hull shape design will lessen the visual impact on the surrounding environment. A large ultra-modern looking museum in an historic dockyard may have proven to be inappropriate.

The value of the Mary Rose

Many countries have seen their underwater heritage looted by treasure hunters, information is then lost forever, after the rediscovery of the Mary Rose it was therefore essential that as much information was gained as possible from such an important vessel. A number of commercial operations are recovering artefacts for monetary gain, these recoveries are not tax payer funded and one could rightly argue that these artefacts would be left on the seabed without these ventures. The recovery of the Mary Rose can hopefully show the historical and educational value of as opposed to the monetary value (Green, 2004: 369-370). Due to the cost factor of underwater archaeology only the most important vessels can be recovered. The Mary Rose gives an insight into the development of the '' design ship (Marsden, 2003: 136), and remains the only 16th century ship to be recovered, conserved and put on display (Jones (ed.) 2003: 1). Therefore the Mary Rose is of international importance.

Written: 01/10/2010

In 1979 the Mary Rose Trust was formed with the aim “to find, to record, to excavate, raise, bring ashore, preserve, report on and display for all time in Portsmouth the Mary Rose” (Dobbs, 2007: 1, Marsden, 2003: 142-146). With the opening of the new museum and the end of the conservation process the Trust would have achieved its many aims. The overall cost has run into millions of pounds but it is hard to put a price on the cultural and educational value of the project. There have been difficulties along the way and it may be a number of years before we know if the project has been a total success. The Trust has provided the seafaring nation of Britain with a lasting legacy and the project has provided a unique insight into Tudor maritime life.

Written: 01/10/2010

References

Barker, Des (2003) 'Conservation of Metals' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Bass, George (1966) Archaeology Underwater, London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Blot, Jean-Yves (1996) Underwater Archaeology Exploring the World Beneath the Sea, London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Collins, K and Mallinson, J (2003) 'The Mary Rose Site and Environment Today' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Cronyn, Janet (1990) The Elements of Archaeological Conservation, London: Routledge

Delgado, James (1997) Encyclopedia of Underwater and , London: British Museum Press

Dobbs, Chris (2007) 'The Raising of the Mary Rose: Archaeology and Salvage Combined', www.maryrose.org

Espuny, Montserrat Capellas (2005) 'Preserving the Mary Rose European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) 2005 Press Release Number: PR-ESRF-05-7', www.esrf.eu

Franzen, Anders (1961) The Warship Vasa and Marine Archaeology in Stockholm, Stockholm: Norstedts / Bonniers in Co-operation with the Vasa Board

Gaimster, David (2003) 'Great Sites: The Mary Rose', British Archaeology Issue 71 July 2003

Gardiner, Julie (2003) 'Processing and Storage of Environmental Samples' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Grattan, David (2004) 'History of Conservation: Early Treatments for Waterlogged Wood', Cci Newsletter no.34 December 2004 www.cci-icc.ga.ca

Hamilton, Donny (2000) 'An Overview of Conservation in Archaeology; Basic Conservation Procedures', www.abc.se

Written: 01/10/2010

Harrison, Richard (2003) 'Creating the Mary Rose Tudor Ship Museum' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Jones, Mark (ed.) (2003) For Future Generations Conservation of a Tudor Maritime Collection, Portsmouth UK: The Mary Rose Trust

Lewis, Wendell (2003) 'Raising the Mary Rose' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Lister, Ted (2005) 'Wood Conservation-the Mary Rose Royal Society of Chemistry', www.rsc.org

Marsden, Peter (2003) Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Martin, Colin (1987) 'Medieval Warships and Traders' in (ed.) 1987 History from the Sea, Shipwrecks and Archaeology Mitchell Beazley Publishers London

Mayol, Dottie (1996) 'The Swedish Ship Vasa's Revival', www.abc.se

McConnachie, Glen., Eaton, Rod and Jones, Mark (2008) 'A Re-evaluation of the Use of Maximum Moisture Content Data for Assessing the Condition of Waterlogged Archaeological Wood, Moisture Content of Archaeological Wood', www.Morana-rtd.com

McConnachie, Glen (2003) 'Conservation of Waterlogged Archaeological Wood' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose Portsmouth U.K:.The Mary Rose Trust

McKee, Alexander (1982) How We Found the Mary Rose, London: Souvenir Press Ltd.

Read, Martin (2002) 'Conservation of the Mary Rose Bronze Guns', www.abc.se

Rule, Margaret (1982) The Mary Rose The Excavation and Raising of Henry VIII's Flagship, London: Conway Maritime Press Ltd.

Sandstrom, Magnus., Jalilehvand, Farideh., Damian, Emiliana., Fors, Yvonne., Jones, Mark and Salome, Murielle. (2005) 'Sulfur Accumulation in the Timbers of King Henry VIII's Warship Mary Rose: A Pathway in the Sulfur Cycle of Conservation Concern', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the of America 2005 October 4; 102(40): 14165-14170

Watson, Keith (2003) 'Conservation of Ceramic, Glass and Stone' in Peter Marsden Sealed by Time, The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose Portsmouth U.K: The Mary Rose Trust

Written: 01/10/2010

Articles from the internet

'Learning' www.maryrose.org

'Mary Rose Museum Portsmouth: New Building' www.e-architect.co.uk

'Mary Rose Pictures' www.bbc.co.uk

'New Museum' www.maryrose.org

'Wreck of Mary Rose Closed to Public Until 2012' www.pbo.co.uk