The Anchor Church Heritage Project, conducted between August 2023 and March 2024, exemplifies the power of collaboration between heritage groups conducting conservation efforts and educational bodies seeking to hone student skillsets and experience. Co-led by the authors of this paper, this initiative brought together the University of Leicester and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust in partnership with Transforming the Trent Valley (TTTV). This scheme, supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, had set out to revitalise Anchor Church, a Grade II listed historically significant site with a rich past as a medieval hermitage, Victorian retreat, and modern cultural landmark along walking trails near Ingleby, Derbyshire, UK.
Central to this effort were seven Archaeology and Ancient History undergraduate students from the University of Leicester, who were able to gain “real world” heritage experience by volunteering their time and research skills to contribute to the site interpretation of Anchor Church. The project aimed to address modern challenges, primarily vandalism and graffiti at the site, by raising awareness of the site and its conservation needs among the local community and beyond. Student contributions included the development of interpretive signage and blog posts that explored Anchor Church’s history, archaeology, and geology. The project leaders provided mentorship and guidance to support the students in their creation of high-quality research blogs aiming to tell the story of Anchor Church and to appeal to a public audience of local visitors and beyond, making the heritage of the site more accessible and engaging.
As collaborations between universities, students, and public heritage officers have not been widely studied or advocated for previously, this case study highlights the mutual benefits of collaboration between specialists and non-specialists, all while creating tangible heritage material for communities visiting Anchor Church. The site benefitted from increased public awareness, which may contribute to reduced incidents of vandalism by fostering community stewardship and increasing knowledge and appreciation of Anchor Church’s cultural value. The students, in turn, were able to gain practical experience in heritage research, communication, and outreach while developing a sense of pride in their contributions. The project illustrates the value of blending education with heritage conservation to achieve tangible outcomes, and it serves as a model for future initiatives aimed at revitalising and safeguarding heritage sites while promoting public engagement.
1. Background of Anchor Church
Anchor Church is thought to have been a monastic hermitage in the 9th century, having originated as an artificial cave with four chambers carved into a sandstone cliff near an abandoned course of the River Trent by Ingleby, Derbyshire, UK (see Figure 1). The name likely refers to “anchorite” as in other similarly named locales in the United Kingdom with hermitic histories (e.g., “Anchor Church Field” at Crowland, Leicestershire, and “Gallt yr Ancr” (Hill of the Anchorite) nearby Meifod Monastery, Powys, Wales.Footnote 1
External view of Anchor Church. Image provided by Paul L. G. Morris, 2023.
As both were recorded as residing in the area of Anchor Church, connections have been drawn between historical references to the deposed Northumbrian King Eardwulf (died c. 830 CE) and Saint Hardulph, and they are thought to have possibly been the same individual.Footnote 2 Previous research highlighted the earliest historic record of an inhabitant of the hermitage, a 1658 burial entry in the Repton Parish Register: “Ye foole at Anchor Church bur. April 19” (see Figure 2), which was further correlated to the same hermit “Hardulche” (assumed to be Saint Hardulph) referred to in John of Tynemouth’s chronicle and in an earlier book that was reprinted in a later 1545 volume by the Hon. Mr Justice Joyce.Footnote 3
Register of baptisms, marriages, and burials 1665–1810, Parish of Repton St Wystan, reference D638/A/PI/1/3. Image provided by Derbyshire Record Office.
Figure 2. Long description
At the top center is the year 1658. Below, each line records a burial event: ‘John Bladon buried April’, ‘Wife Higgons buried April’, ‘John E son of Higgs buried April 15’, ‘E Lode at Churchchurch buried April 19’, ‘Wife of William Harrison of Pilton buried April 23’, and ‘Hepion E son of Will Pratt buried April’. The handwriting is in brown ink, with some words faded or partially illegible. The entries are aligned left, with dates at the end of each line.
As excavations, landscape surveys, or other scientific analyses had not yet taken place at the site, Edmund Simons confirmed the medieval origins of Anchor Church by comparing negative stratigraphical and diagnostic features of the cave to historic evidence, affirming that the site had only been minimally modified in the 18th or 19th century.Footnote 4 These modifications were undertaken by the Burdett family, the Baronets of Bramcote from nearby Foremark Hall, who used Anchor Church for retreats, dining, and other entertainments from around the 18th century, with later 19th-century photographs showing the cave furnished with additions including window frames, brick walls, steps, a front door, and a folly, all of which were then absent in a photograph dating to 1914.Footnote 5
Further modifications after this have been attributed to vandalism and decay, including the loss of earlier documented wooden and brick features.Footnote 6 Anchor Church was designated as Grade II listed in 1967 and was later listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, amended for its special architectural and historic interest (Historic England, 2025). Despite this, the site had been somewhat neglected by researchers until recent years, prior to the aforementioned study by Edmund Simons. Before the revitalisation and conservation efforts described in this paper, the site was of only local interest, with relatively few dedicated visitors aside from countryside walkers of several popular footpaths and trail loops which pass by Anchor Church.
2. Anchor Church and Transforming the Trent Valley
TTTV was a landscape partnership scheme that was delivered between April 2019 and March 2024. Funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the scheme focussed on the middle reaches of the River Trent in the east of Staffordshire and south of Derbyshire, UK. Covering a landscape area of 200 km2, the project followed the River Trent from Rugeley to Shardlow, the River Tame from the north of Tamworth to its confluence with the River Trent at Croxall, and the River Dove from Uttoxeter to its confluence with the River Trent at Willington. The scheme was valued at almost £5 million and was successfully delivered in partnership with 18 organisations, with Staffordshire Wildlife Trust at the helm.
The aims of the project were: to conserve, enhance and restore the built, historic and natural heritage features of the Trent Valley Landscape; to reconnect and engage communities with the Trent Valley landscape and its natural and cultural heritage; to increase access to landscape heritage, creating better links and opportunities for learning and enjoyment; and to increase training opportunities for local people in heritage skills to empower the local population, reconnect them with their landscape and provide a lasting legacy.
The Anchor Church Heritage Project was part of a wider opportunity to address all of these aims, with additional on-the-ground conservation activities delivered by both conservation specialists and local volunteers. The site has long been popular as a visitor attraction for walkers, fishermen, and as a family picnic destination, but its relatively remote location provides an opportunity for occasional use by individuals or small groups of people operating on the fringes of society or undertaking perceived anti-social behaviours.
Graffiti at Anchor Church has occurred over a long period of time, as evidenced by the style and occasional dating of individual graffiti and this increased dramatically in 2021, a period which coincided with the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and the curtailment of public mobility during this time. Observed anti-social behaviours (categorised as personal, environmental, and nuisance behaviours) rose dramatically during this period, before falling back to a more “normal” level following a return to unrestricted mobility.Footnote 7 In this case, significant areas of the interior of the caves were spray-painted with graffiti tags, as observed during a site visit in September 2021. Further site visits were arranged with Edmund Simons in May and June of 2022, during which it was observed that the caves are part of a wider complex than the listed structure itself, although the focus of graffiti was largely limited to the main cave system. The setting of the monument was then and is currently detrimentally affected by large-scale quarrying works across the river, a backwater of which stands immediately in front of the caves, and which is a palaeochannel of the River Trent. The quarry is a temporary feature, and the setting will eventually be restored. A timber post-alignment of 105 upright oak posts from the quarry currently being investigated has raised speculation that these may be on an alignment between a Bronze Age burial mound, itself centrally located within a Neolithic henge, and the caves at Anchor Church.Footnote 8 If so, this has significant repercussions for Anchor Church, and the Anglo-Saxon origins of the site may in fact turn out to be a re-use of a much earlier monument.
Whatever the outcome of the current archaeological investigation in the quarry, Anchor Church remains a heritage site of national significance, and following a period of discussion and consultation, graffiti removal was deemed desirable.Footnote 9 This was due in large part to both the national significance of the site and to its local distinctiveness, informing our understanding of the area’s wider history and forming part of our cultural heritage. Removal of the graffiti was considered desirable as it has been noted that, left in situ, it leads to additional graffiti being applied, as if some kind of permission has been given.Footnote 10 Given the level of current interest and research conducted into historic graffiti, and what that can tell us about how people in the past interacted with their buildings and other structures, serious consideration was given to the potential of this graffiti for its possible future historic value, and it was deemed that photographing and recording the graffiti would be sufficient for future research. Therefore, the opportunity was taken by the TTTV scheme to undertake the project of graffiti removal.
It was understood from the outset that expert advice would be required, and appropriately enough, a firm of local heritage conservation specialists was to hand to advise and eventually undertake the work. Further site meetings were held with the specialist conservators and the Conservation Officer from South Derbyshire District Council (SDDC), the body which would require planning consent for the work to go ahead. Permission was also required from the landowner, an absentee landlord, which was obtained through their land agent. Advice was also sought and given from Historic England and from the Derbyshire County Archaeologist. Funding for the remedial work was supported through grants to TTTV from Historic England.
The fabric of the caves themselves is formed of layers of sandstone of varying consistencies, providing a challenge to the conservators as harder or softer surfaces hold paint at differing levels of absorption. Over very long periods of time, fires have been lit within the caves, and the smoke from these has formed a centuries-old sooty crust (see Figure 3). Soot is a caustic substance which initially eats into the surface of the sandstone, but which eventually forms a crust that acts as a protectant or barrier to further environmental degradation, in this case to paint absorption or other potential chemical damage (it can, of course, be cut through by people inscribing graffiti using mechanical means). This protective crust of soot was a significant benefit to the conservators during restoration.
Interior view of Anchor Church. Image provided by Paul L. G. Morris.
The remedial work was undertaken by the conservators in July 2023, following planning consent from SDDC, and the laborious task of conservation using a high-temperature, low-pressure steam to soften the paint, and then painstaking hand removal using a selection of brushes and rounded scrapers, delicately loosening and removing the paint could begin. In some instances, much older layers of paint were encountered below the more recent spray paint, and in one or two isolated cases, these were left rather than attempting removal where it was judged by the conservators that there was potential to cause damage to the sandstone fabric of the monument.
Following completion of the works, discharge of conditions of consent was sought from and approved by SDDC following further site visits and inspection by officers. A short video of the activities was made by TTTV, and this prompted media activity in the local press and beyond, including BBC East Midlands News, whose news report was seen and followed up by Derbyshire Constabulary, whose Rural Crime Team had an interest in preventing heritage crime.Footnote 11 Again, following a site visit with police officers in December 2023 (a previous visit having been cancelled as bad weather caused significant flooding in the Trent Valley, preventing access), additional support was provided, and working together, advice was given on crime prevention and reporting. This information helped inform the interpretation panels which were later installed on site.
3. Student research experience and contribution
The collaborative project between the TTTV scheme and the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester decided that the creation of heritage interpretation boards and public-facing blog posts on Anchor Church was warranted. Through mentorship of student volunteers, the project aims would align with each of TTTV’s goals, especially through its increasing training opportunities for local people in heritage skills and reconnecting them with their landscape. The intended outcome would provide information and awareness about the Grade II-listed medieval site, educate the public on the site’s history, and ultimately aim to dissuade future vandalisation. To undertake this work, it was agreed that this could be accomplished by undergraduate researchers, providing “real-world” research experience and a chance to produce tangible heritage assets.
An open call for volunteer researchers went out to archaeology and ancient history undergraduate students at the University of Leicester, where seven agreed to undertake the roles during the summer break. While each had training in archaeological research techniques and had a wide range of subject interests (mostly outside the medieval period), none had previous coursework that involved writing for non-academic audiences. Some of the volunteers had also previously taken an undergraduate heritage module at the University of Leicester. Considering the coursework they had successfully completed towards their degree requirements (with the volunteers all entering their second or third year), the project mentors were confident in the level of training and skills the student volunteers could contribute to the project.
One key element of the mentorship design was that, while the co-leaders (the three co-authors of this paper) conveyed the value that the research would contribute to Anchor Church, they prioritised student wellbeing. They avoided emulating the pressure of academic coursework, instead fostering a collaborative environment where all contributions would be appreciated but ultimately optional. The volunteers were encouraged to communicate if they had any barriers to their participation at any point in the project, especially as some were also volunteering on archaeological excavations, so that their volunteer commitments would not impede other aspects of their lives.
Students were provided with a list of research topics on Anchor Church, ranging from various historical periods, previous archaeological work undertaken, and the unique geology of the site, allowing each student’s relevant knowledge and interests to be utilised. The students elected to work on the selected research topics either in small teams or individually, based on their preferences. Each of the three project mentors supported the students by hosting fortnightly group meetings online, providing guidance on research techniques and further sessions on heritage and public-facing writing, regular email correspondence, as well as editing advice and proofreading when they produced their blogs. The mentors also each meticulously reviewed the finished works as well as their cited sources, verifying them as valuable contributions to the ongoing research of Anchor Church. Posted in December 2023, the six informational blogs written by the student volunteers shed light on a range of time periods throughout Anchor Church’s past, with the intent to give a storytelling experience to those interested in the heritage of the site (see Figure 4). While research-based, the writing tone and material were geared towards a wider audience, highlighting the heritage of Anchor Church and further connecting it with the local community.
Screenshot of the student blogs hosted on the Anchor Church page of the TTTV website.
As this was the first such collaboration that the co-leaders or participants had been involved in, it is important to note that some elements of the student project came together organically and adaptively rather than as a result of intentional project design. Upon successful completion of the work and the feedback of participants, the mentors realised that the strengths and outcomes of this type of collaboration had far exceeded their expectations. The number of volunteers, their level of interest and involvement, as well as their dedication to producing high-quality research, was due to the individual character of the volunteers themselves rather than any intentional design of the project or successful mentorship. Rather, the motivation of the volunteers to research unknown histories and to aid a local heritage site seemed to be the biggest driver in the mutual success of this collaboration.
4. Project results: benefits for the student volunteers
The achievements and experiences of the student volunteers in their phase of the Anchor Church Heritage project warrant reflection on the value of engaging public heritage groups and university research communities when striving towards mutually prosperous outcomes.Footnote 12 Previously, undergraduates participating in research collaborations outside of universities have mostly taken place within STEM fields, with similar approaches in the humanities not gaining traction until the last few decades.Footnote 13 Pedagogically, evidence from universities and student surveys has highlighted that undergraduates taking part in research outside the traditional classroom benefitted their learning, including a higher student retention rate and increased overall student satisfaction.Footnote 14 Corley highlighted the benefits to students and faculty in his experience of mentoring several collaborative history research projects.Footnote 15 This utilised the framework Todd McDorman created on the three ways of integrating undergraduate research, signifying how much involvement the students and academic lead have in the project.Footnote 16
More recently, various ways of including student research into public-facing heritage venues have been successful. Howard Williams mentored undergraduates to organise and conduct multiple public-facing conferences, presenting their own research into contemporary archaeological topics. These were followed by publications of edited volumes from a combination of both academics and undergraduate students together, allowing a venue for wider academic experience.Footnote 17 Steve Ching worked with undergraduate students to research and create lighthouse heritage preservation outputs to be utilised in future educational programmes and publications.Footnote 18 These few examples highlight successful programmes in which students undertook research in collaboration with academics, providing enriching educational experiences.
The methods utilised for the Anchor Church Heritage Project mirrored Todd McDorman’s Faculty Driven Collaboration, where the academics designed the project, divided up research topics for the students, and acted as mentors for the undergraduates. The collaborative element between staff and students within the research promoted the community endeavour of knowledge creation and discovery from Todd McDorman’s framework of integrating undergraduate research.Footnote 19 The ideas of the students were respected and encouraged, and volunteers have been shown to provide diverse perspectives to professional heritage settings.Footnote 20
Managing expectations from the outset has also been shown in wider literature to be vital to student satisfaction in their volunteer contributions, and indeed the satisfaction of all parties involved in such volunteer projects.Footnote 21 Furthermore, when higher education students volunteer, the benefits they may gain, such as satisfaction, have been shown to be negatively impacted by initiatives which mandate participation or use other coercive tactics, such as fear surrounding the impact on future employability.Footnote 22 While students were informed how this experience with the Anchor Church Heritage Project may benefit them, including transferable research and communication skills and experience, this was done during the project and not at the outset to encourage their initial signing-up nor continued participation. Rather, the priorities at the time were on how the site would gain from the collaboration.Footnote 23
An assessment of student benefits was not considered in the project design but arose after project completion, when the co-leaders considered publishing the collaborative successes of the project and future recommendations. While long-term benefits of archaeological and heritage outreach projects on their participants have been widely acknowledged, their tangible benefits to communities have been considered equally difficult to assess, either quantitatively or qualitatively, beyond self-reported survey methods.Footnote 24 Whether or not their intended careers were in the sectors of heritage, history, or archaeology, the students expressed appreciation for gaining experience and insight into the heritage sector, contributing their research to interpretive signage and blogs for Anchor Church, and feeling that their efforts had produced tangible benefits to the site. After project completion, several students asked for letters of reference from project leaders, which outlined their exemplary volunteer research work, their engaging writing skills to fit a wide visitor audience, as well as their independence and problem-solving abilities shown when developing their blog posts on Anchor Church. Several students have since reported via personal communications that they are presently involved in the archaeological or heritage sectors, either through further studies or work. Through personal communication, the project mentors later collected feedback from the volunteers to further assess any benefits gained from their participation:
“I really enjoyed this project as it gave me experience in collaborating with peers and researching in a more professional capacity. I also really enjoyed the project, it was a fun project and I learnt a lot.”Footnote 25
“I signed up for the project because I knew basically nothing about Medieval history; the first thing I did after the first meeting was google what a hermitage was. I wasn’t sure whether I was actually good at researching or had just memorised a lot of stuff. I think it went really well and I really enjoyed the two topics I was researching, so from a personal standpoint it was really reassuring that I did know how to research effectively. Also, learning how to tailor my writing to a different audience is a skill that is going to be very useful for the PhD I’m about to start, based at a heritage site!”Footnote 26
The enjoyment of the students was expressed during and after the completion of the project, reflecting previous examples of implementing undergraduate research.Footnote 27 The student researchers were curious to know when the blogs would go live (December 2023) and when the heritage signage would be created and placed at the site (March 2024). The success of the blogs and heritage signage prompted many of the students to note they were interested in similar future projects, further highlighting their overall satisfaction with this initiative. While it is difficult to measure other beneficial outcomes, such as academic and post-graduation success in careers or future education, future large-scale studies could gain quantifiable insight into the long-term impacts on student outcomes after volunteering in the heritage sector.
5. Project results: benefits for Anchor Church
Designed to support the conservation efforts, the student contributions from this collaboration benefited the revitalisation of Anchor Church and its ongoing efforts to increase public and community awareness of its heritage. As acts of graffiti were deemed seriously harmful to the conservation, protection, and cultural value of Anchor Church, the student researchers would help TTTV to enhance visitor knowledge and the sense of community ownership and custodianship over the site. Their contributions would also serve to provide a potential deterrence to future incidents of vandalism by providing education and a sense of legitimacy to Anchor Church as an important historic site.
To design the interpretation signage, Mark Knight condensed the student research blogs down to a limited word count and provided images, QR codes, and logos of the organisations involved in the funding and research, with which a member of his communications team generated a design outline. From this, the design team at the company hired to produce the panels created draft designs in alignment with the unified approach to the interpretation across the TTTV project area, in consultation with Mark Knight and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust communications team. Accessibility of the panels for visitors to Anchor Church was also ensured by following the seven universal design principles of heritage site signage.Footnote 28 As site signage must be brief, not only due to size limitations but also due to other factors like cognitive processing and visitor fatigue, the student research contributions on Anchor Church were able to aid in the presentation of succinct and high-quality information.Footnote 29 Their self-selected research topics also provided insight into key areas of interest for visitors, aiding in the selection of which information to showcase on the panels.
Two identical information panels were then installed at either side of the walking path to ensure that visitors would notice the signage from both directions (see Figure 5). The installation of the interpretation boards was filmed as part of the BBC Countryfile episode from the Trent Valley, screened on the final day of the TTTV scheme, 31 March 2024, and watched by almost 3 million viewers in the UK in the week of broadcast, providing a satisfying conclusion to the scheme and to the Anchor Church restoration and the heritage project more widely.Footnote 30 Subsequent site visits noted that low levels of graffiti damage had continued, but follow-up local news and social media reports by the police seem to have curtailed the worst of this activity.
One of two identical interpretation boards installed along the walking path at the Anchor Church heritage site. Image provided by Mark Knight.
Figure 5. Long description
At the top of the board, the title reads ‘Anchor Church is a unique monument…’ in large yellow text. Below the title, the left half contains a black-and-white historical illustration of Anchor Church caves, with a block of explanatory text beneath and to the right of the image. The right half of the board features a color photograph of the site at sunset, a QR code, and additional descriptive text about the site's heritage and visitor information. The board is supported by two black metal posts and is surrounded by thick green vegetation, with tree trunks and branches arching overhead and a dirt walking path visible to the right.
The interpretive panels provide an overview of the history of Anchor Church, from its origins as a medieval hermitage and connections to King Eardwulf and St. Hardulph, as well as its importance as being potentially among the oldest surviving Anglo-Saxon dwellings. The boards also include its later history and use through the Victorian period into the 20th century, describing previous structures and modifications done to Anchor Church. These structural markers would be presently visible to visitors, encouraging them to explore the site and to see the archaeological evidence for themselves. The panels’ images of the site further demonstrate how it looked in earlier times, allowing the visitor to imagine what visiting Anchor Church was like during these past periods. The design of the panels aimed to connect the rich past of Anchor Church with modern visitors and contextualise the site’s long history and use, ultimately tapping into the communal history of the local area.
With a QR code linking to the Anchor Church blog pages on the TTTV website, this exemplifies a low-cost, easily accessible, and simple way to incorporate more extensive and up-to-date information on a heritage site, engaging visitors further. When visitors are provided with a greater range of information and resources online, this can increase average visitor information intake, as signage comprehension is limited by holding time and memory recall.Footnote 31 Signage linking to webpages can also increase accessibility, as websites can be customised by device settings to improve readability, provided the user has the required device and internet access.
Heritage interpretation, such as signage, is vital in aiding visitors to not only understand and enjoy sites like Anchor Church, but also to highlight the importance of the site and to play a key role in managing visitor behaviour.Footnote 32 Informational site panelling not only increases visitor knowledge and appreciation of heritage assets but also amplifies a sense of ownership and guardianship in the visitor, especially when highlighting conservation and protection needs.Footnote 33 The absence of signage signals “abandonment” of a heritage site and thus is thought to encourage vandalism and other damaging behaviours among visitors.Footnote 34 Informational panels such as those now at Anchor Church can increase a sense of legitimacy for rural heritage sites, providing a curated sense of place amidst the wider landscape for visitors, and potentially contributing to the protection of the site from vandalism through increased cultural value.Footnote 35
Heritage interpretation not only transfers knowledge to visitors but also develops a sense of care for the site, instilling in them desirable values such as empathy and mindfulness.Footnote 36 Not only does this enhance visitor experience, but it can also improve public support for heritage conservation efforts, guide self-directed visitors through sites, and limit inappropriate behaviours such as littering and vandalism, each of which was a primary goal in planning the installation of interpretive signage at Anchor Church. It has been argued that heritage site interpretation, including signage, should focus on visitor experience, emblemising the “soft” approach to visitor management of self-regulation rather than the “hard” approach of physical, regulatory, and economic techniques such as wardens or guards, further supported by the difficulty of establishing regular patrolling in lesser-funded and rurally located heritage sites.Footnote 37
Efforts to prevent future incidents of graffiti at many heritage sites are important, as graffiti removal requires multiple specialists and many resources to treat each unique circumstance.Footnote 38 As in the case at Anchor Church, the removal and protection of stone surfaces from spray paint damage has been challenging due to the complexity of paint formulas, stone composition, and surface characteristics, as well as environmental factors. Anti-graffiti products to prevent further vandalism can have negative impacts on the physical qualities of the original stone; thus, they are not currently a suitable solution for many heritage sites.Footnote 39 Beyond physical prevention, understanding the social mechanisms behind graffiti at heritage sites is vital to protect locations such as Anchor Church. Dedicated studies of heritage crimes such as graffiti, their causes and mitigations, are still relatively new. Some researchers advocate for holistic approaches to situations, including complex interplays of societal power structures, identities, and individual expression through graffiti at sites like monuments or prisons, as well as the important place of graffiti in subcultures throughout time as an “alternative heritage.”Footnote 40
To further aid in graffiti prevention and engage the local community in the ongoing protection efforts of Anchor Church, details on this were provided on the TTTV website linked by QR code on the site panel. The website outlines the previous vandalism and subsequent conservation, including a “before and after” interactive comparison image to showcase the results of the restoration and increase visible impact to visitors (see Figure 6). The website conveys the extensive multi-stage planning and skilled labour undertaken, as well as the funding required to remove the graffiti, listing the parties involved, such as Historic England and local police, who are endeavouring to monitor and protect Anchor Church from further damage. The website also includes an embedded YouTube video of the restoration of Anchor Church, undertaken on TTTV’s behalf by ASBC Heritage & Conservation Specialists in August 2023, as well as a link to the BBC news report on this process, increasing awareness of the conservation efforts among and beyond the local community as well as further legitimising the site and revitalisation efforts. Thanks to the site signage established in 2024 and subsequent media coverage, the Anchor Church webpage received 1,742 site visits in 2025, exceeding the expectations of the team at TTTV.
Graffiti clean-up: before and after image switcher. Screenshots provided by Paul L. G. Morris.
The board itself also includes a notice of the protection and listed building status of Anchor Church, enlisting visitors in the protection of the monument by looking out for and reporting any incidents of “lighting fires, barbecues, graffiti, or any other harm,” citing that these acts are prosecutable offences (see Figure 7). The notice also includes a QR code linking to the website for the Derbyshire Constabulary in order to file a report with the Rural Crimes Team if any threats to the site are noticed by visitors. Along with conveying the cultural value of the site through the informational panelling, this invitation to visitors to join in the protection of the site further demonstrates the site’s “soft” approach to visitor management through self-regulation, since resources such as constant monitoring and or physical restrictions on access are not feasible for Anchor Church.
Design proof of interpretation board at Anchor Church heritage site. Image provided by Mark Knight.
Figure 7. Long description
At the top, a large yellow title reads ‘Anchor Church is a unique monument.’ Below, a black and white stereoscopic photo of Anchor Church caves is centered, showing rock-cut openings. To the left under the photo, a yellow-highlighted caption notes the image’s Victorian origin. Below, a text block describes the dwelling’s history, linking it to King Eardwulf of Northumbria, its Anglo-Saxon origins, and later modifications. The text explains the function of rooms, wooden structures, and surviving features like arched doorways and pilaster caps. To the right of the main photo, a vertical text block details architectural changes: 18th-century doorways, brickwork, window enlargements, and the addition of a sandstone block kerb. It discusses how window sizes changed from medieval to modern times. Two QR codes are stacked vertically on the right, with text above and below: the upper section invites visitors to scan for more information, and the lower section warns about legal protection and reporting damage. At the bottom right, a color engraving by Thomas Smith of Derby 1745 shows Anchor Church beside a river with figures and livestock, captioned in yellow. Logos for Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Transforming the Trent Valley, University of Leicester, and the Heritage Fund are arranged along the right and bottom edges.
Multi-layered revitalisation efforts such as these at Anchor Church are essential, as engaging with visitors and the public on conservation issues and heritage management can change attitudes and even prevent destruction and loss at heritage sites, along with policies and other approaches to fit the context of each situation.Footnote 41 Furthermore, this documentation of the graffiti and conservation efforts shows how heritage sites are encouraged to integrate all past phases into the story of the site into its interpretation.Footnote 42 Wider research has long demonstrated that engaging with the public directly on the conservation process and its challenges is essential, such as revealing the “behind-the-scenes” process of the graffiti removal at Anchor Church via the website and linked videos. This highlights how heritage interpretation and education can convey to the public the importance of conservation as well as the high amounts of labour and cost behind it, demonstrating the value of conservation practices as well as the need to protect heritage sites like Anchor Church from further costly or irreversible damage.Footnote 43 However, future studies are needed as the correlation between heritage education endeavours and graffiti prevention is difficult to measure.Footnote 44
6. Conclusion
Projects which unite university students and heritage professionals have many mutual benefits: from improving the resources, conservation, and protection of heritage sites through research contributions via blogs and site panelling, to providing students with real-world heritage research experience and a sense of accomplishment through their tangible contributions outside the classroom. The student volunteers were able to expand greatly on the story of Anchor Church, contributing research to the interpretative signage as well as in-depth public blogs, which further increased awareness of the site’s value and conservation needs. The digital technology implemented through the project was able to extend the revitalisation impacts through simple and low-cost means, providing further information on the site and its conservation efforts, as well as resources to join in community protection of the site via local authorities and reporting incidents of vandalism.
The collaboration between TTTV and the student volunteers of the Anchor Church Heritage Project was able to achieve multiple aims by increasing access to the archaeological landscape of the hermitage and creating improved connections and opportunities to learn about and enjoy the site, both for on-site and website visitors. The resources produced and conservation efforts at Anchor Church also engaged communities with the cultural heritage of the site within the Trent Valley landscape. Through the student research contributions to the heritage signage and linked website, these revitalisation efforts have not only increased the public awareness of essential conservation and protection of the site but also engaged visitors and local communities through education on the historical and archaeological importance of Anchor Church.
This paper ultimately encourages more creative collaborations between groups such as heritage sites and student volunteers from a range of disciplines. Project designs would benefit from open and adaptable approaches to the aims, skillsets, and needs of each community, with plans to evaluate successes and publish reflections on the process and achievements of their goals. Despite the time and energy required to organise and facilitate volunteer projects such as this, faculty members rate highly the outcomes of such initiatives for universities as well as students and non-profit organisations who participate.Footnote 45 Universities can see economic gains and increased prestige, employability, and future successes of their graduates as a result of their volunteer work.Footnote 46
Further studies are also recommended to better understand the social mechanisms behind acts of graffiti at heritage sites where physical prevention methods have been shown to be cost-prohibitive, as well as to assess the efficacy of interpretive signage and publicity surrounding revitalisation efforts, among other “soft” approaches to visitor management and site conservation. While education and community-engagement efforts can aid in the reduction of vandalism of rural sites, further resources and policy changes are needed to protect important heritage assets such as Anchor Church.
As this paper has shown, revitalisation efforts of heritage sites that forge connections between communities and their local heritage can have positive impacts that extend even beyond local residents. Through their participation in the Anchor Church Heritage Project, the student volunteers and heritage professionals were able to contribute to the conservation efforts and uncover the communal history in ways that benefitted themselves as well as the public. When specialists and non-specialists such as university students and heritage professionals endeavour to collaborate, all parties have much to gain.
Acknowledgements
This article would not be possible without project support from the Transforming the Trent Valley scheme and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. The authors thank Dr Jane Ainsworth from the University of Leicester, who helped initiate this project through introductions and also thank their seven undergraduate researchers for their hard work and essential support in making this project successful: Anna Fisher, Lee Fisher, Ivy Griffiths, Molly Mather, Finlay Mosley, Leif Stimpson, and Grace Styling. Many thanks to photographer Paul L. G. Morris for providing his original images of Anchor Church and screenshots of his image switcher. Please visit his website and Bluesky page to find out more about his work:
https://www.pmstudios.co.uk @pmstudiosuk.bsky.social.
Many thanks as well to the Derbyshire Record Office for their records scanning service and for providing permission to use images of their original records in this publication. Please visit their website, blog, and social media to find out more about their catalogue and services:
https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/record-office/derbyshire-record-office.aspx.
Author contribution
Writing - original draft: R.S.P., B.C., M.K.
Open access
