Editing Mary Rose (section)

== History as a shipwreck ==

[[File:Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk from NPG.jpg|alt=Charles Brandon|upright|thumb|[[Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk|Charles Brandon]], brother-in-law of King Henry&nbsp;VIII through marriage with [[Mary Tudor, Queen of France|Mary Tudor]], who took charge of the failed salvage operation in 1545]]

A salvage attempt was ordered by Secretary of State [[William Paget, 1st Baron Paget|William Paget]] only days after the sinking, and [[Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk|Charles Brandon]], the king's brother-in-law, took charge of practical details. The operation followed the standard procedure for raising ships in shallow waters: strong cables were attached to the sunken ship and fastened to two empty ships, or [[hulk (ship type)|hulks]]. At low tide, the ropes were pulled taut with [[capstan (nautical)|capstans]]. When the high tide came in, the hulks rose and with them the wreck. It would then be towed into shallower water and the procedure repeated until the whole ship could be raised completely.<ref>For a detailed account of the raising operations, see {{harvp|Rule|1983|pp=39–41}}; {{harvp|Marsden|2003|pp=20}}; Peter Marsden, "Salvage, Saving and Surveying the ''Mary Rose''" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|pp=12–14}}.</ref>

A list of necessary equipment was compiled by 1 August and included, among other things, massive cables, capstans, [[pulleys]], and 40 pounds of [[tallow]] for [[lubrication]]. The proposed salvage team comprised 30 Venetian mariners and a Venetian carpenter with 60 English sailors to serve them.<ref>''State Papers Henry VIII'', vol. 1, (1830), pp. 796–797 note, Suffolk to Paget, 1 August 1545: [http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=80410 ''Letters & Papers, Henry VIII'', vol. 20 part 2 (1907), nos. 2–3, 14, 16, 38–39, 81, abbreviated]</ref> The two ships to be used as hulks were ''[[Jesus of Lübeck]]'' and ''Samson'', each of 700&nbsp;tons burthen and similar in size to the ''Mary Rose''. Brandon was so confident of success that he reassured the king that it would only be a matter of days before they could raise the ''Mary Rose''. The optimism proved unfounded. Since the ship had settled at a 60-degree angle to starboard much of her was stuck deep into the clay of the seabed. This made it virtually impossible to pass cables under the hull and required far more lifting power than if the ship had settled on a hard seabed. An attempt to secure cables to the main mast appears only to have resulted in its being snapped off.<ref>Peter Marsden, "Salvage, Saving and Surveying the ''Mary Rose''" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|pp=12–14}}; see {{harvp|Marsden|2003|p=28}} for a discussion of the possible salvage of part of the main mast during the 19th century salvage.</ref>

[[Image:17th century salvaging.jpg|thumb|upright|alt=A wide noose made of thick rope with anchors attached to it and two floating wooden ships overlaid with heavy beams with ropes hanging down from them|Illustration from a treatise on salvaging from 1734, showing the traditional method of raising a wreck with the help of [[anchor]]s and ships or [[hulk (ship type)|hulks]] as [[Floats (nautical)|pontoons]], the same method that was attempted by the Tudor era salvors]]

The project was successful only in raising rigging, some guns and other items. At least two other salvage teams in 1547 and 1549 received payment for raising more guns from the wreck.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=20}} Despite the failure of the first salvage operation, there was still lingering belief in the possibility of retrieving the ''Mary Rose'' at least until 1546, when she was presented as part of the illustrated list of English warships called the [[Anthony Roll]]. When all hope of raising the complete ship was finally abandoned is not known. It could have been after Henry VIII's death in January 1547 or even as late as 1549, when the last guns were brought up.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=20}}{{sfnp|Payne|2000|p=23}} The ''Mary Rose'' was remembered well into the reign of [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth&nbsp;I]], and according to one of the queen's admirals, [[William Monson (admiral)|William Monson]] (1569–1643), the wreck was visible from the surface at low tide in the late 16th century.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p=41}}

=== Deterioration ===

After the sinking, the partially buried wreck created a barrier at a right angle against the currents of the Solent. Two scour pits, large underwater ditches, formed on either side of the wreck while silt and seaweed was deposited inside the ship. A deep but narrow pit formed on the upward tilting port side, while a shallower, broader pit formed on the starboard side, which had been mostly buried by the force of the impact. The abrasive actions of sand and silt carried by the currents and the activity of fungi, bacteria and wood-boring crustaceans and molluscs, such as the ''[[Teredo navalis|teredo]]'' "shipworm", began to break down the structure of the ship. Eventually the exposed wooden structure was weakened and gradually collapsed. The timbers and contents of the port side were either deposited in the scour pits and remaining ship structure or carried off by the currents. Following the collapse of the exposed parts of the ship, the site was levelled with the seabed and gradually covered by layers of sediment, concealing most of the remaining structure. During the 16th century, a hard layer of compacted clay and crushed shells formed over the ship, stabilising the site and sealing the Tudor-era deposits. Further layers of soft silt covered the site during the 18th and 19th centuries, but frequent changes in the tidal patterns and currents in the Solent occasionally exposed some of the timbers, leading to its accidental rediscovery in 1836 and aiding in locating the wreck in 1971.<ref>{{harvp|Jones|2003|pp=12–24}}; {{harvp|Rule|1983|pp=69–71}}; see {{harvp|Marsden|2003|pp=76–86}} for a detailed stratigraphy of the wrecksite.</ref> After the ship had been raised it was determined that about 40% of the original structure had survived.<ref>Peter Marsden, "Understanding the ''Mary Rose''" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|p=20}}</ref>

=== Rediscovery in 19th century ===

In mid-1836, a group of five fishermen caught their nets on timbers protruding from the bottom of the Solent. They contacted a diver to help them remove the hindrance, and on {{Nowrap|10 June}}, Henry Abbinett became the first person to see the ''Mary Rose'' in almost 300 years. Later, two other professional divers, [[John Deane (inventor)|John Deane]] and William Edwards, were employed. Using a recently invented rubber suit and metal diving helmet, Deane and Edwards began to examine the wreck and salvage items from it. Along with an assortment of timbers and wooden objects, including several longbows, they brought up several bronze and iron guns, which were sold to the [[Board of Ordnance]] for over £220. Initially, this caused a dispute between Deane (who had also brought in his brother Charles into the project), Abbinett and the fishermen who had hired them. The matter was eventually settled by allowing the fishermen a share of the proceeds from the sale of the first salvaged guns, while Deane received exclusive salvage rights at the expense of Abbinett. The wreck was soon identified as the ''Mary Rose'' from the inscriptions of one of the bronze guns manufactured in 1537.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=21–25}}

[[File:Mary Rose iron gun watercolor.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Views from above and from the side of a long, slender cannon attached to a massive wooden carriage made from a single piece of wood|Watercolour painting of two perspectives of a sling, a wrought iron gun, complete with two-wheeled gun carriage (wheels missing) and part of another iron sling. The paintings were made to record some of the finds raised by the Deane brothers 1836–40.]]

The identification of the ship led to high public interest in the salvage operation and caused a great demand for the objects that were brought up. Though many of the objects could not be properly conserved at the time and subsequently deteriorated, many were documented with pencil sketches and watercolour drawings, which survive to this day. John Deane ceased working on the wreck in 1836, but returned in 1840 with new, more destructive methods. With the help of condemned bomb shells filled with gunpowder acquired from the Ordnance Board, he blasted his way into parts of the wreck. Fragments of bombs and traces of blasting craters were found during the modern excavations, but there was no evidence that Deane managed to penetrate the hard layer that had sealed off the Tudor levels. Deane reported retrieving a [[bilge pump]] and the lower part of the main mast, both of which would have been located inside the ship. The recovery of small wooden objects like longbows suggests that Deane did manage to penetrate the Tudor levels at some point, though this has been disputed by the excavation project leader [[Margaret Rule]]. Newspaper reports on Deane's diving operations in October 1840 report that the ship was clinker built, but since the sterncastle is the only part of the ship with this feature, an alternative explanation has been suggested: Deane did not penetrate the hard shelly layer that covered most of the ship, but managed only to get into remains of the sterncastle that today no longer exist. Despite the rough handling by Deane, the ''Mary Rose'' escaped the wholesale destruction by giant rakes and explosives that was the fate of other wrecks in the Solent (such as {{HMS|Royal George|1756|6}}).{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=26–29}}{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p=47}}<ref>For a detailed account of the Deanes see John Bevan, ''The Infernal Diver: the lives of John and Charles Deane, their invention of the diving helmet, and its first application to salvage, treasure hunting, civil engineering and military uses''. London: Submex. 1996. {{ISBN|978-0-9508242-1-5}}.</ref>

=== Modern rediscovery ===
The modern search for the ''Mary Rose'' was initiated by the Southsea branch of the [[British Sub-Aqua Club]] in 1965 as part of a project to locate shipwrecks in the Solent. The project was under the leadership of historian, journalist and amateur diver [[Alexander McKee (author)|Alexander McKee]]. Another group led by Lieutenant-Commander Alan Bax of the Royal Navy, sponsored by the Committee for Nautical Archaeology in London, also formed a search team. Initially the two teams had differing views on where to find the wreck, but eventually joined forces. In February 1966 a chart from 1841 was found that marked the positions of the ''Mary Rose'' and several other wrecks. The charted position coincided with a trench (one of the scour pits) that had already been located by McKee's team, and a definite location was finally established at a position {{convert|3|km|mi|abbr=on}} south of the entrance to [[Portsmouth Harbour]] ({{Coord|50|46|0|N|1|06|0|W|type:landmark_region:GB-HAM|display=inline}}) in water with a depth of {{Nowrap|11 m}} (36&nbsp;feet) at low tide.{{sfnp|Wille|2005|p=388}} Diving on the site began in 1966 and a sonar scan by [[Harold Edgerton]] in 1967–68 revealed some type of buried feature. In 1970 a loose timber was located and on {{Nowrap|5 May}} 1971, the first structural details of the buried hull were identified after they were partially uncovered by winter storms.<ref>{{harvp|Marsden|2003|pp=30–34}}; {{harvp|Rule|1983|pp=47–56}}</ref>

A major problem for the team from the start was that wreck sites in the UK lacked any legal protection from plunderers and treasure hunters. Sunken ships, once being moving objects, were legally treated as [[Personal property|chattel]] and were awarded to those who could first raise them. The [[Merchant Shipping Act]] of 1894 also stipulated that any objects raised from a wreck should be auctioned off to finance the salvage operations, and there was nothing preventing anyone from "stealing" the wreck and making a profit. The problem was handled by forming an organisation, the Mary Rose Committee, aiming "to find, excavate, raise and preserve for all time such remains of the ship ''Mary Rose'' as may be of historical or archaeological interest".<ref>{{harvp|Marsden|2003|pp=32–33}}; quote from {{harvp|Rule|1983|p=54}}</ref>

To keep intruders at bay, the Committee arranged a lease of the seabed where the wreck lay from the Portsmouth authorities, thereby discouraging anyone from trespassing on the underwater property. In hindsight this was only a legalistic charade which had little chance of holding up in a court of law. In combination with secrecy as to the exact location of the wreck, it saved the project from interference. It was not until the passing of the [[Protection of Wrecks Act 1973]] on {{Nowrap|5 February}} 1973 that the ''Mary Rose'' was declared to be of national historic interest that enjoyed full legal protection from any [[Disturbance (archaeology)|disturbance]] by commercial salvage teams. Despite this, years after the passing of the 1973 act and the excavation of the ship, lingering conflicts with salvage legislation remained a threat to the ''Mary Rose'' project as "personal" finds such as chests, clothing and cooking utensils risked being confiscated and auctioned off.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|pp=54–56}}

==== Survey and excavation ====

Following the discovery of the wreck in 1971, the project became known to the general public and received increasing media attention. This helped bring in more donations and equipment, primarily from private sources. By 1974 the committee had representatives from the [[National Maritime Museum]], the [[Royal Navy]], the [[BBC]] and local organisations. In 1974 the project received royal patronage from [[Charles III of the United Kingdom|Prince Charles]], who participated in dives on the site. This attracted yet more publicity, and also more funding and assistance.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=35}} The initial aims of the Mary Rose Committee were now more officially and definitely confirmed. The committee had become a registered charity in 1974, which made it easier to raise funds, and the application for excavation and raising of the ship had been officially approved by the UK government.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p=67}}

By 1978 the initial excavation work had uncovered a complete and coherent site with an intact ship structure and the orientation of the hull had been positively identified as being on an almost straight northerly heading with a 60-degree heel to starboard and a slight downward tilt towards the bow. As no records of English shipbuilding techniques used in vessels like the ''Mary Rose'' survive, excavation of the ship would allow for a detailed survey of her design and shed new light on the construction of ships of the era.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p=108}} A full excavation also meant removing the protective layers of silt that prevented the remaining ship structure from being destroyed through biological decay and the scouring of the currents; the operation had to be completed within a predetermined timespan of a few years or it risked irreversible damage. It was also considered desirable to recover and preserve the remains of the hull if possible. For the first time, the project was faced with the practical difficulties of actually raising, conserving and preparing the hull for public display.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p=72}}

To handle this new, considerably more complex and expensive task, it was decided that a new organisation was needed. The [[Mary Rose Trust]], a [[charitable organization|limited charitable trust]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/277503 |title=The Mary Rose Trust, Charity no. 277503 |publisher=[[Charity Commission for England and Wales]] |access-date=2025-01-26}}</ref> with representatives from many organisations would handle the need for a larger operation and a large infusion of funds. In 1979 a new diving vessel was purchased to replace the previous {{convert|12|m|ft|abbr=on}} catamaran ''Roger Greenville'' which had been used from 1971. The choice fell on the salvage vessel ''Sleipner'', the same craft that had been used as a platform for diving operations on the ''Vasa''. The project went from a team of only twelve volunteers working four months a year to over 50 individuals working almost around the clock nine months a year. In addition, there were over 500 volunteer divers and a laboratory staff of about 70 that ran the shore base and conservation facilities.<ref>{{harvp|Marsden|2003|pp=40–41}}; {{harvp|Rule|1983|pp=59, 73–76}}</ref> During the four diving seasons from 1979 to 1982 over 22,000 diving hours were spent on the site, an effort that amounted to 11.8 man-years.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p=220}}

==== Raising the ship ====

[[File:MaryRose-salvage1982-below water.tif|thumb|right|The final stages of the salvage of the ''Mary Rose'' on 11 October 1982. The lifting frame (the top of the salvage cage) can be seen just below the surface of the water, about to emerge.]]

[[File:MaryRose-salvage1982-above water.jpg|thumb|right|alt=A partial section of a wooden ship lying inside a massive steel frame is suspended just about the water with a partial view of a barge on the left and small boats in the background.|The wreck of the ''Mary Rose'' clear of the water.]]

[[File:People viewing the salvage cage holding the Mary Rose 1982.jpg|thumb|alt=People standing in front of the wreck of the ''Mary Rose'' while in its protective cage|People viewing the salvage cage holding the ''Mary Rose''.]]

Raising the ''Mary Rose'' meant overcoming delicate problems that had never been encountered before. The raising of the Swedish warship ''[[Vasa (ship)|Vasa]]'' during 1959–61 was the only comparable precedent, but it had been a relatively straightforward operation since the hull was completely intact and rested upright on the seabed. It had been raised with basically the same methods as were in use in Tudor England: cables were slung under the hull and attached to two pontoons on either side of the ship which was then gradually raised and towed into shallower waters. Only one-third of the ''Mary Rose'' was intact and she lay deeply embedded in mud. If the hull were raised in the conventional way, there was no guarantee that it would have enough structural strength to hold together out of water. Many suggestions for raising the ship were discarded, including the construction of a [[cofferdam]] around the wreck site, filling the ship with small buoyant objects (such as ping-pong balls) or even pumping brine into the seabed and freezing it so that it would float and take the hull with it. After lengthy discussions it was decided in February 1980 that the hull would first be emptied of all its contents and strengthened with steel braces and frames. It would then be lifted to the surface with [[floating sheerleg]]s attached to nylon strops passing under the hull and transferred to a cradle. It was also decided that the ship would be recovered before the end of the diving season in 1982. If the wreck stayed uncovered any longer it risked irreversible damage from biological decay and tidal scouring.{{sfnp|Lewis|2003|pp=51–53}}

During the last year of the operation, the massive scope of full excavation and raising was beginning to take its toll on those closely involved in the project. In May 1981, [[Alexander McKee (author)|Alexander McKee]] voiced concerns about the method chosen for raising the timbers and openly questioned [[Margaret Rule]]'s position as excavation leader. McKee felt ignored in what he viewed as a project where he had always played a central role, both as the initiator of the search for the ''Mary Rose'' and other ships in the Solent, and as an active member throughout the diving operations. He had several supporters who all pointed to the risk of the project's turning into an embarrassing failure if the ship were damaged during raising operations. To address these concerns it was suggested that the hull should be placed on top of a supporting steel cradle underwater. This would avoid the inherent risks of damaging the wooden structure if it were lifted out of the water without appropriate support. The idea of using nylon strops was also discarded in favour of drilling holes through the hull at 170 points and passing iron bolts through them to allow the attachment of wires connected to a lifting frame.{{sfnp|Childs|2007|pp=197–198}}

In the spring of 1982, after three intense seasons of archaeological underwater work, preparations began for raising the ship. The operation soon ran into problems: early on there were difficulties with the custom-made lifting equipment; the method of lifting the hull had to be considerably altered as late as June.<ref name="Rule1983_p227">{{harvp|Rule|1983|p=227}}</ref> Divers from the [[Royal Engineers]] were brought in to do much of the underwater work.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://maryrose.org/blog/where-were-you-in-82-royal-engineers/ |title=Where were you in 82? Royal Engineers |last=McKnight |first=Hugh |website=maryrose.org |publisher=Mary Rose Trust |access-date=27 August 2024}}</ref> After the frame was properly attached to the hull, it was slowly jacked up on four legs to pull the ship off the seabed. The massive crane of the barge ''Tog Mor'' then moved the frame and hull, transferring them underwater to the specially designed cradle, which was padded with water-filled bags. On the morning of {{Nowrap|11 October}} 1982, the final lift of the entire package of cradle, hull and lifting frame began. It was watched by the team, Prince Charles and other spectators in boats around the site. At 9:03 am, the first timbers of the ''Mary Rose'' broke the surface. A second set of bags under the hull was inflated with air, to cushion the waterlogged wood. Finally, the whole package was placed on a barge and taken to the shore. Though eventually successful, the operation was close to foundering on two occasions; first when one of the supporting legs of the lifting frame was bent and had to be removed and later when a corner of the frame, with "an unforgettable crunch",<ref name="Rule1983_p227"/> slipped more than a metre (3&nbsp;feet) and came close to crushing part of the hull.{{sfnp|Lewis|2003|pp=53–59}}{{sfnp|Rule|1983|pp=206–227}}