What is Heritage Science? – Reflections on British Science Week 2026

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

This month at NHSF, Annie Lane takes a look at the Discovering Heritage Science webinar series and reflects on its potential to introduce heritage science to a wider audience.

British Science Week 2026 brought some wonderful opportunities for heritage science engagement.  This year’s theme is ‘Curiosity: What’s Your Question?”, encouraging exploration and discovery in STEM. The National Trust and Icon collaborated on a webinar series, aptly titled Discovering Heritage Science: What It Is and Why It Matters, supported by British Science Week, RICHeS, and AHRC. 

The webinars were split up by material. Each one contains an introduction, two talks, and a Q&A:  

Heritage science professionals at a range of organisations came together to share their expertise and introduce their projects from around the world and throughout time, from The Courtauld Institute’s study of pigments in a sixth-century grotto along the Silk Road (the extraordinary Mogao Caves at Dunhuang) to film preservation and restoration at the British Film Institute. 

As a reflection on the stories shared in these webinars, some key quotes can help shape our answers to the questions: what is heritage science, and why does it matter? 

Heritage Science as Collaboration 

“Heritage science helps us make informed choices towards sustainable approaches to painting care.” Sybilla Tringham, The Courtauld Institute, The Role of Heritage Science in Caring for our Wall Paintings (Day 2)

By far the clearest, most consistent thread through every presentation is the idea of heritage science as collaboration.   It pops up in conservation, archaeology, material science, chemistry, art history, and more.  Research happens across teams, across borders, and across disciplines.  This makes it remarkably flexible and versatile (although, ironically, quite difficult to define…)

Heritage Science as Storytelling 

“What we are trying to do as technical art historians and heritage scientists is disentangle the hundreds of decisions made by painters.” – Erma Hermes, Hamilton Kerr Institute (Fitzwilliam Museum), Painted Surfaces: the material stories hiding in plain sight (Day 3)

Erma Hermes and Lisa Oestricher (Architectural Paint Research; day 2) highlight heritage science as the use of technical analysis and imaging techniques (such as Macro-XRF) to uncover hidden layers of an object’s story.  Close analysis of pigments and materials helps to build up a fuller narrative or timeline of how an object was made, used, and preserved over time, including previous conservation interventions. For example, Lore Troalen (Analysis of the Fettercairn Jewel and Comparative Scottish Renaissance Jewellery; day 5) explains how different imaging and chemical analysis techniques were used to answer key questions about the origins and use of a 16th-century pendant locket.

Heritage Science as Past, Present and Future 

“New technologies are constantly evolving, and they help transform heritage science.” – Sophie Barton, ACR Conservator, What Lies Beneath: Analysis and the Conservation of Woodwork and Furniture (Day 4) 

Technical analysis allows us to look into an object’s past, but each talk had a unique way of examining the field as a site of innovation for the future.  Phillipa McDonnell (The Weird and the Wonderful: How the Ingredients of Historic Paint Tell Stories; day 3) shows how pigment analysis can help us track changes in paint production technology over time. Kieron Webb (Moving Images: the new frontier in heritage science; day 1) discusses the ongoing preservation of digital media in the age of streaming, while Sybilla Tringham (The role of heritage science in caring for our wall paintings; day 2) highlights a recent research project involving the use of modified bacteria as a solvent-free and potentially more sustainable alternative for removing non-original materials and coatings. 

Heritage science can also help protect collections in the present. Kristie Short-Traxler (Illuminating Heritage Lighting Decisions; day 5) explores how microfading can inform lighting decisions to reduce damage and colour loss in collections on display, while Sarah Coggins (Conservation Science and the Mary Rose; day 4) demonstrates the use of heritage science to test different conservation treatments for the hull of one of our most famous historic ships. As well as the objects themselves, heritage science analysis can also protect the people working with them!  The British Library’s Hazards in Collections project identified dangerous compounds (such as arsenic) in the pigments in book covers and manuscripts.

Conclusions 

It is in the spirit of heritage science to look closely without losing sight of the bigger picture.  This webinar series helps us to draw out some of the core ideas and principles behind the field, and shines a light on some of the fascinating projects at the forefront of today’s research. 

All five webinars are available to view on Icon’s YouTube channel, and you can learn more about the Heritage Science Group here. 

Find out more about the National Heritage Science Forum and our mission here.  Sign up to our newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn and Bluesky to keep up with the latest heritage science updates from across the UK. 

Rethinking Hazards in Collections at the British Library

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Guest author: Dr. Margaret-Ashley Veall.

In this blog post, Dr Margaret-Ashley Veall, Hazards in Collections project manager at the British Library, explores how heritage science can help to understand hazards within heritage collections and how to manage them.

Heritage organisations are incredibly diverse: in size, budget, collections, staffing and public audience. Yet across this variety, one shared reality is often overlooked: collections can contain hazards. The UK heritage sector has renewed its focus on hazardous materials in collections. Initiatives such as the Science Museum Group’s Empowering Safety: Hazardous Materials Awareness, Identification and Management and Museum Development South West’s Reducing the Risks: Hazards in Collections reflect this growing awareness.

As the national library of the UK, the British Library houses over 170 million items, expanding by approximately three million items every year. Our Yorkshire and London sites hold not only millions of books, but everything from newspapers to sound recordings, patents, stamps, prints and drawings, maps, and manuscripts, alongside an array of artwork, furniture, electrical equipment, and textiles.

A book cover with an overlaid XRF graph indicating the presence of copper and arsenic.
Photo 1: XRF analysis of the decorative overlay from the cover of A Winter Wreath of Summer Flowers (C.183.a.20.). The XRF spectrum at the top highlights the presence of copper (Cu) and arsenic (As), characteristic of emerald green (copper acetoarsenite) or Scheele’s green (copper arsenite) pigments. Image copyright: The British Library Board.

The British Library is undertaking a review of hazards within its collections through the Hazards in Collections project. The work focuses on raising awareness, providing practical guidance and reviewing how hazards are managed across the organisation. This includes the development of in-person training, slide decks and bite-sized e-learning modules to introduce staff to common hazards. A guidance pack is also being developed to provide hazard-specific information and safe working practices that can be incorporated into risk assessments and existing procedures. This project brings together perspectives from conservation science, collections care, health and safety, with those in curation, cataloguing, legal deposit, goods inwards, operations, metadata, loans and exhibitions. 

The Conservation Science team supports the identification of hazards within collections through scientific analysis (Photo 1) using in-house techniques such as portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and fibre optic reflectance spectroscopy (FORS). Results can inform decision-making about access and care. While impossible to analyse every item across collections, targeted analysis alongside asking questions about provenance and past treatments can begin the process of flagging and restricting items. The aim of restricting an item is not to remove it from use permanently but instead create a natural pause to enable discussions about the nature of the hazard and safer ways of working.  

Following the Poison Book Project and early survey and mitigation efforts by Baldwin et al. (2025), ongoing research into our catalogues to identify and restrict printed books containing arsenic-based pigments has also created opportunities to rethink how activities take place. When the green cloth binding of Rustic adornments for homes of taste (1857) was confirmed to contain arsenic, the volume was restricted. A request from staff to include a poison book in a donor event centred on Agatha Christie and the dangers found in domestic settings of the time prompted us to reconsider the British Library’s Show-and-Tell activity and the controls that could enable safe access. We designed a step-by-step workflow that included control measures, signage, labels and appropriate PPE for use throughout the event. This structure gave staff confidence in their actions on the day and enabled the safe display of an item that contains a hazard. Safe to say the book (Photo 2) generated significant interest among attendees and was very well received. 

A green book. It has been bagged and displayed under a hood for safety.
Photo 2: Shirley Hibberd’s Rustic adornments for homes of taste: and recreations for town folk, published in 1857 (1608/3947) was identified by XRF as having an arsenic-based pigment incorporated into the bookcloth. Here it is on display for an event showcased under a hood, bagged and accompanied with a label. Image courtesy of the British Library.

For questions or to find out more about conservation science at the British Library, contact us at ConservationScience@bl.uk.

A Year of Collaboration: Updates on the Strategic Framework for Heritage Science in the UK

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Caroline Peach highlights work by the National Heritage Science Forum (NHSF), its members, and the wider heritage science community that addresses the opportunities and challenges presented in the Strategic Framework for Heritage Science in the UK.

A year ago, NHSF published the 2024-2027 Strategic Framework for Heritage Science in the UK. The framework is a tool to support collaboration by the heritage science community in three areas of research, community and public value.

We hope it will inspire you to connect to the initiatives listed here and encourage you to show how your work also contributes to the framework, by adding a short description and URL to our three online noticeboards.

Strategic Framework for Heritage Science in the UK, 2024-2027

Research

The framework envisions excellent interdisciplinary heritage science research flourishing through diversified funding streams that bridge arts and sciences, enhanced access to specialised equipment and expertise, strengthened collaboration networks, and improved pathways for translating research into practice. These developments are seen as the key to unlocking the potential of heritage science to generate new knowledge and innovation.

In the last year…

  • RICHeS (Research Infrastructure for Conservation and Heritage Science) has launched. This is an £80 million commitment by UK Research and Innovation to creating a distributed infrastructure of 30 funded centres for heritage science equipment, services and reference collections, connected by the Heritage Science Data Service which will provide digital catalogues, a data repository and virtual research environment. Find out more about the RICHeS programme and the Heritage Science Data Service.
  • The European Research Infrastructure for Heritage Science (E-RIHS) has been officially established as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium. The UK connects to these cutting-edge laboratories, tools, data and training opportunities through the RICHeS IHQ (Infrastructure Headquarters), which acts as the national coordinator for the UK node of E-RIHS. Find out more.
  • NHSF Task Group on Research Priorities – NHSF members are collaborating to crowd-source information on published heritage science research to identify thematic strengths, where there are gaps in research, and priorities for future research investment or collaboration. Find out more.

Add information on interdisciplinary funding opportunities, access to research capability, collaboration on research priorities, research translation and innovation to the Research Noticeboard.

Community

The framework advocates that an inclusive, skilled, and diverse heritage science workforce can be achieved through better understanding of capacity and skills needs, varied training and career progression pathways, reduced barriers to recruitment and retention, and increased visibility of heritage science careers. Building this confident, outward-looking community will ensure the field attracts and retains the talent needed to thrive.

In the last year…

  • NHSF’s Workforce Task Group has focused on the need for comprehensive research into the capacity and capability of the heritage science workforce, combined with an understanding of its current and future skills needs. The group’s members have gathered intelligence on studies from the historic environment, archaeology and conservation sectors to establish what is known and where further research is needed.
  • The Skills Investment Plan for the Historic Environment in Scotland has published its year one report which captures key findings from extensive consultation, including priorities and actions for the thematic area of Heritage Science. Find out more.
  • Historic Environment Scotland is using Modern Apprenticeships and Fellowships in heritage science as new way of developing skills, knowledge and experience.
  • AHRC-funded Collaborative Doctoral Partnership Studentships and UKRI’s early career fellowships in cultural and heritage institutions provide support for people looking to build a career that spans the arts and sciences.

Add information on workforce research and data, training and CPD opportunities, and initiatives that support an inclusive, confident heritage science community to the Community Noticeboard.

Public Value

The framework identifies key opportunities to amplify heritage science’s societal contribution: developing shared approaches to measuring impact, creating robust knowledge-exchange mechanisms, expanding public engagement, and forging stronger connections between research, industry, and policy. Realising these priorities will make heritage science’s benefits to society more visible and tangible.

In the last year…

  • DCMS published Embedding a Culture and Heritage Capital Approach – an update on its work to develop a framework to help the sector articulate its value and make a stronger case for investment in culture and heritage assets. Find out more.
  • Projects funded under the Culture and Heritage Capital programme continue to explore aspects of value including ITHACA-Integrating Lifetimes in Heritage Capital (UCL) and ACH (Arts, Culture and Heritage) Taxonomies (Historic England).
  • Historic England portal on Culture and Heritage Capital – captures work by Historic England with DCMS and other Arm’s Length Bodies to establish an agreed economic approach for valuing cultural heritage assets and the benefits they provide to people and businesses. Find out more.
  • NHSF ran its first Trends in Heritage Science conference which explored the role of heritage science research and innovation in addressing global challenges. Find out more.

Add information on stakeholders for heritage science research, measurement of public value, public engagement with heritage science, connecting heritage science research to societal challenges, links with industry, and links between heritage science and public policy to the Public Value Noticeboard.

To find out more about the Strategic Framework for Heritage Science in the UK, and NHSF’s work to encourage collaboration by the heritage science community, visit the NHSF website.

Reflections on One Year of RICHeS

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Guest author: Professor Meggen Gondek, Head of the Research Infrastructure for Conservation and Heritage Science (RICHeS) Infrastructure Headquarters (IHQ).

It is hard to believe RICHeS is one year old, both in the sense of how quickly the time has flown and how much we have achieved in just 12 months!

When we launched in October 2024, our team was just three members strong, all relatively new to this major programme of investment by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Today, we have grown into an incredible team of seven, all dedicated to delivering our programme objectives and supporting the heritage sector.

The three key aims of RICHeS focus on building collaboration in our infrastructure and across the wider heritage sector to support new and effective ways of working, investing in capability and innovation and enabling access to heritage science, ensuring our expertise drives tangible impact.

Our launch marked the beginning of ambitious investments across 30 different facilities and collections across the UK, alongside the creation of an accessible digital repository and catalogue of heritage science services in the Heritage Science Data Service (HSDS).  One year on and pilots of both the HSDS Data Catalogue and the HSDS Catalogue of Services are live and ready to support the sector. Meanwhile, our other investments are in the process of acquiring high demand equipment, building and extending storage and laboratory spaces and preparing to offer increased access to their expertise.

In just our first year, RICHeS has already created 82 jobs in the heritage science sector and has engaged over 3,500 participants through workshops, webinars, events and meetings. This is just the beginning, as we continue to build the infrastructure to support long-term growth.

Some personal highlights from me as Head of the RICHeS Infrastructure Headquarters over this past year include:

  • Regional networking events: We have held three so far, with our fourth coming up on 4 November in Cardiff. These events have brought together our distributed infrastructure but also provided important bridges of conversation and partnership to local organisations and stakeholders. We have seen new partnerships develop and have been able to learn more about key issues in the sector.
Snapshot of the RICHeS Regional Workshop at The National Archives in London.
  • Showcasing RICHeS to diverse audiences:  From UKRI senior executives to research leaders at higher education institutions, independent research organisations, other research councils and the broader heritage sector, we have had the opportunity to advocate for RICHeS far and wide. A particular highlight was having the new CEO of UKRI, Sir Ian Chapman, officially open our new RICHeS award-winning sustainable office at Daresbury.
Professor Sir Ian Chapman with Dr Ben Edwards demonstrating RICHeS invested portable capabilities at the RICHeS IHQ opening event.
  • Seeing the impact of AHRCs investment:  Reading and sharing the stories of how heritage science funding is making a difference for heritage organisations has been incredibly rewarding. Many of these stories are featured on our website. We are excited to see the full impact once our investments go live in 2026 for local and regional organisations, for heritage science research and innovation, and for the sector as a whole.
  • Launching the Access Fund: This is the first ‘at scale’ funding scheme specifically designed to widen access to heritage science expertise and technologies for smaller organisations and charities. If you or an organisation you work with think you might have an eligible project that would benefit, please do check out the application and guidance on our website.

Reflecting on this first year, it is clear how much can be achieved with a shared vision, dedicated people and strong collaboration. We cannot wait to see what the next year brings for RICHeS, our infrastructure and the heritage sector as a whole.

NHSF Conference ‘Trends in Heritage Science’: Reflection #04

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Guest author: Sam Matthews, Archaeological Science Fellow at The Engine Shed (Historic Environment Scotland).

Image credit: PaulT (Gunther Tschuch), CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

NHSF’s very first conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science’ took place on 10 July 2025. We awarded four bursaries for the event, and the recipients have each contributed a blog post reflecting on their experiences and learnings from the day. To finish off our series, we’re pleased to share Sam Matthews’ blog post, which focuses particularly on his experience of presenting a poster.

I am Sam Matthews and I was fortunate to attend the 2025 NHSF Conference: Trends in Heritage Science with the support of a bursary for NHSF members. I have worked for Historic Environment Scotland (HES) since February 2024 as an Archaeological Science Fellow. This is a hands-on training position, with the aim of taking knowledge and experience from an academic background and transferring these skills to the workplace. As part of my fellowship, I have undertaken a great variety of work over the last year and a half – research into archaeological and heritage sites, investigating objects of various materials, placements with teams within HES and other partner organisations. Preparing for and attending this conference was another aspect of this training programme, and one I greatly enjoyed. 

Poster by Sam Matthews – ‘The Dumbarton Cross Pendant: Uncovering the Mysteries of an Early Medieval Object’.


On the preparation front, I submitted, designed, and presented a poster for the conference – my first experience of doing so. It was based on a piece of work I did over the winter, investigating a small ceramic cross pendant that was found at Dumbarton Castle. Creating a poster from the report I had previously prepared was an enjoyable challenge – ensuring I struck the right balance between conveying accurate scientific information and keeping the poster brief and digestible. At the conference, I really enjoyed discussing my work with the delegates. It was excellent to be given the opportunity to share with a wider audience and gain vital experience in preparing similar posters in the future.

I really valued the chance at the conference to network with a range of professionals in the heritage science sector. As well as conversations during breaks throughout the day, this was facilitated excellently at the early career mentoring session in the afternoon. My fellowship is a temporary position that comes to an end in February 2026, so I am in the early stages of planning my next steps. I was able to discuss some of my thoughts and concerns about a career in heritage science: for example, the insecurity of short-term contracts, how the few professional opportunities are very competitive, and whether it was necessary to do further education or a PhD. In turn, I received helpful advice from the mentors – some specific contacts to reach out to, pointers towards emphasising transferable skills in a CV, a reminder that I could be flexible and non-linear with my career path. As someone who perhaps considers themselves primarily an archaeological scientist, it was good to reflect that I had options in the field of traditional archaeology that other heritage scientists may not. I also enjoyed meeting the other mentees – they too had lots of great advice. 

Of the presentations, I particularly enjoyed those towards the end of the day, on the theme of digital innovation in heritage science. This is a little outside the work I do, but I found the projects and discussion points raised very interesting. Specifically, two points have stayed with me: the importance of interdisciplinary and cross-organisational teams in maximising the benefits of projects in heritage science, and a call to think beyond our standard processes and outputs to innovate. I went away thinking how I could apply this to my own work – perhaps by trying to work more closely with other teams in HES or people outside the organisation, or thinking about what more I can do with my scientific output beyond just writing a report. 

In conclusion, I greatly enjoyed attending the NHSF conference this year! Hopefully, this will be the first of many I will be able to attend, as I continue my career as a heritage scientist. 

If you would like to find out more about the NHSF Conference, you can find the web page here.

NHSF Conference ‘Trends in Heritage Science’: Reflection #03

National Heritage Science Forum1 Comment

Guest author: Arianne Panton ACR, Manager of Conservation and Research, Leather Conservation Centre

NHSF’s very first conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science’ took place on 10 July 2025. We awarded four bursaries for the event, and the recipients have each contributed a blog post reflecting on their experiences and learnings from the day. These will continue to be published over the next two weeks. Today, we’re pleased to share Arianne Panton’s blog post, which focuses particularly on her experience of the RICHeS workshop.

In the run-up to the NHSF’s inaugural conference, a clear aim of the event was shared with delegates: ‘to inspire and grow an active heritage science community’. Arriving in the foyer of the UCL Engineering building in the morning, the energy and excitement in the atmosphere were palpable – a theme that continued throughout the day and, on reflection, was a wonderful representation of the spirit of the conference.  

The morning was split into two sessions of talks, each concluding with a short panel discussion. Moderators and delegates were given the opportunity to ask questions or raise topics, which worked well in providing more explorative dialogue than traditional Q&A sessions, and connected common themes between the talks.  

The first session started BIG. As someone on the periphery of the heritage science community (and wanting to get more involved), the first talk by Adala Leeson set the scene by discussing how heritage science, and heritage more broadly, interact with wider economic systems. I found this talk very enlightening and, from the reaction of many in the audience who work at policy level, it is a crucial and hot area of debate. The key themes I took from this talk included ‘Value’ and ‘Collaboration’, which remained constants throughout the day.  

Breaks provided an opportunity to view posters (and eat cake!). The variety of research themes was huge, illustrating the reach and impact of heritage science in practice. Examples were as varied as a study of intangible heritage in a Chinatown marketplace in Kolkata, India, to improving methods of volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis in monitoring cellulose acetate degradation. Data generation was a common theme across all topics, and for me, the session really emphasised the complexity and nuance of heritage values.  

The second and final sessions of talks at the end of the day presented topics on built heritage and digital innovation. As (primarily) a hands-on conservator working with leather and skin materials, I thought I might struggle to engage with some of the themes; however, all the speakers (who included professionals from outside ‘heritage science’) were fantastic at relating discussion back to common reference points, and I quickly identified areas where the research being presented would impact the types of objects I work on – an example being the retrofitting of historic buildings, as we commonly work on gilt leather wall hangings which are often displayed in situ in such buildings.  

After lunch, delegates attended pre-selected workshops before the third session of talks. I attended the workshop on the Research Infrastructure for Conservation and Heritage Science (RICHeS), as this was what attracted me to the conference initially. The session was a great mix of information-sharing about the programme, alongside an interactive segment in which we discussed some key questions and topics about what the infrastructure might look like and what the needs of its users are. This session was great! It provided a chance to network and (hopefully) contribute to the framework of the programme, which, as someone who represents a small, charitable organisation, is a rare opportunity. Needless to say, I’m very excited to see its progress over the next year or so.  

I left the conference with a feeling of optimism and excitement for the future of heritage science, accompanied by a better understanding of the scale of the task ahead. The term ‘paradigm shift’, used by several speakers throughout the day, seemed to sum up the feeling well. All talks, in their own way, touched on the need for continual enquiry in the face of global challenges larger than just heritage and heritage science – challenges intrinsically linked to changes in our environment, inequality, and the movement of people, to which we need to respond.  

If you would like to find out more about the NHSF Conference, you can find the web page here (and stay tuned for the final blog post!).

NHSF Conference ‘Trends in Heritage Science’: Reflection #02

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Guest author: Alison Dwyer, ACR, Senior Conservator for the Conservation and Museums Advisory Service (CMAS).

NHSF’s very first conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science’ took place on 10 July 2025. We awarded four bursaries for the event, and the recipients have each contributed a blog post reflecting on their experiences and learnings from the day. These will continue to be published over the next three weeks. Today, we’re pleased to share Alison Dwyer’s blog post, which focuses particularly on her experience of the workshop, ‘Open access apps for preventive conservation: using damage functions in practice’.

Prof Matija Strlič speaking at the NHSF Conference. Photo credit: Alison Dwyer.

I was delighted to receive a non-member bursary to attend the NHSF Conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science.’ With a sharp focus on how heritage science can, and should, contribute to building and sustaining community, it promised to be a refreshing and engaging event.   

The day began with a powerful keynote from Adala Leeson, Head of Socio-Economic Analysis and Evaluation at Historic England. She challenged heritage professionals to better engage with the idea of “cultural heritage as capital.” Her message was clear: if we don’t improve how we communicate the value of heritage, we risk being overlooked and underfunded. This theme—of improving data collection and speaking a shared language—echoed throughout the day. 

Referencing his work on damage functions, Professor Matija Strlič (University of Ljubljana) explored the relationship between material change in collections and their perceived value, asking whether we’re comfortable viewing heritage objects through an economic lens—where time and deterioration equate to value loss. Within what time-frame does an object cease to have value, and who makes the decision? 

The second session shifted to sustainable retrofitting of historic and older buildings. Dr Moses Jenkins (Historic Environment Scotland) and Professor David Glew (Leeds Beckett University) shared how heritage-led research is already influencing policy, standards, and education in the wider building sector. It was encouraging to see how work in our field is making a tangible difference beyond heritage, helping communities adapt their homes in sustainable and cost-effective ways. 

A standout moment for me was the breakout workshop on open-access apps for preventive conservation. Led by a stellar team—Matija Strlič, Josep Grau-Bové, David Thickett, and Boris Pretzel—we explored three tools: Collections Demography, HERIe, and corrosion rate sheets for silver and copper. Each group tackled a conservation scenario (Jimi Hendrix’s electric guitar, no less!) and, reassuringly, we all reached similar conclusions using different apps. Having the app creators in the room made the session even more valuable—it was hands-on, engaging, and genuinely fun. 

The final session focused on digital innovation. Dr Sterling MacKinnon introduced us to research at Blenheim Palace and the concept of “digital twinning”—a new idea for me, but one with exciting potential for future research and simulation. Keith Challis from the National Trust shared how they’re using robotic ‘Spot’ dogs to survey inaccessible buildings at Orford Ness, capturing data and enabling virtual access. He encouraged us to think beyond traditional approaches and draw inspiration from digital artists to create immersive experiences. Dr Vania Virgili wrapped up with an overview of the European Research Infrastructure for Heritage Science (E-RIHS), highlighting opportunities for collaboration and innovation. 

With a great mix of posters, exhibitors, and delegates from across disciplines—not to mention a delicious buffet lunch—the conference was both enjoyable and thought-provoking. My biggest takeaway? Confidence in the heritage science community’s ability to communicate its relevance at a challenging time, with great potential to meaningfully shape policy and national investment in the future.

If you would like to find out more about the NHSF Conference, you can find the web page here (and stay tuned for the next three blog posts!).

NHSF Conference ‘Trends in Heritage Science’: Reflection #01

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Guest author: Georgia Millsom, PhD Student in the Department of Materials at Imperial College London and at Tate.

NHSF’s very first conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science’ took place on 10 July 2025. We awarded four bursaries for the event, and the recipients have each contributed a blog post reflecting on their experiences and learnings from the day. These will be published over the next four weeks. Today, we’re pleased to share Georgia Millsom’s blog post, which focuses particularly on her experience of the speed mentoring workshop.

Speed Mentoring Workshop at the NHSF Conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science’. Photo credit: Francesca Azolini.

On Thursday 10 July the National Heritage Science Forum held its inaugural conference, ‘Trends in Heritage Science’, at University College London. Events like these are so important as an early career researcher, as not only do they provide the opportunity to broaden knowledge of the wider sector, but they also provide opportunities to keep developing relationships with individuals outside your organisation. 

Three main topics were covered during the talk sessions, with panel discussions providing the opportunity to delve deeper into the content of the talks. As heritage science has many niches, this was a great opportunity to do a deep dive into topics I was previously unfamiliar with. A wide range of topics was also covered in the poster session, showcasing the breadth and depth of current heritage science research. 

The first session revolved around the economic value of heritage, considering its impact on the economy. This session provided the opportunity for challenging questions for the panel, such as putting a value on scientific knowledge about objects. As a heritage scientist, I tend to only consider the value of scientific knowledge in terms of furthering understanding of an object, or in terms of understanding how an object may be preserved, rather than its economic value.  

The second session was about sustainability and historic buildings, focusing on retrofits, enabling a new lease of life for buildings. As someone with little knowledge of architecture, these talks showcased how research into listed buildings, and monitoring the effects of retrofitting, can benefit not just the heritage sector, but more widely the building sector. This is yet another example of how transferable research is between heritage and other fields.   

Attendees then had the opportunity to take part in one of three parallel workshop sessions: one run by the RICHeS team, one on damage functions in heritage science, and the last being a speed mentoring session for emerging professionals, run by Francesca Azolini and Corinne Suraci from the ICON Heritage Science group.  

In the speed mentoring session, participants had the opportunity to meet with three established professionals, with eight minutes to talk to each. Armed with a list of questions, I had three very speedy but incredibly useful conversations. Having the opportunity to have these one-to-one conversations with professionals was invaluable.  

Alongside the speed mentoring, there was a networking board, where participants were encouraged to write their details about where they had studied and worked, and what they were looking for – whether it was job opportunities or collaborations. This provided a springboard for conversations, leading to candid discussions about the process of doing PhDs, and expectations for job hunting after they are completed.   

Networking Board at the Speed Mentoring Workshop. Photo credit: Francesca Azolini.

Towards the end of the day, a conference declaration was also adopted, focusing on how collaboration should be at the heart of research. This ended the conference with a united front, focusing on the positives that coming together at events like these can bring. Many thanks to the organisers for putting on this conference, and for providing the opportunity for the community to come together again. 

If you would like to find out more about the NHSF Conference, you can find the web page here (and stay tuned for the next three blog posts!).

Celebrating Women in Heritage Science and Engineering

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

In 2024, EngineeringUK reported that only 15.7% of people working in engineering and technology in the UK are women. For over a century, the Women’s Engineering Society has worked to change this – supporting and championing women in engineering since World War I.

One of their key initiatives is International Women in Engineering Day, celebrated each year on 23 June. This month, the National Heritage Science Forum is joining in with the celebrations by spotlighting two women making important contributions at the intersection of heritage, science, and engineering. 

Nicola Grahamslaw at SS Great Britain

As Conservation Engineer at the SS Great Britain Trust, Nicola Grahamslaw plays a key role in conserving one of the UK’s iconic historic ships, while helping the museum move towards its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

In the last few years, Nicola has spearheaded a project to improve the energy efficiency of the ship’s dehumidifers, earning the Sustainable Project of the Year Award at the Museums + Heritage Awards. She continues to explore ways of reducing the ship’s carbon footprint further, including a potential switch from dehumidifers powered by gas to those powered by electricity generated from renewable sources. 

Nicola began working for the SS Great Britain Trust in 2018, bringing previous experience as an Engineering Analyst and Systems Engineer across various contexts. 

Read more about Nicola’s recent work on decarbonising dehumidifers here. 

Yasemin Didem Aktas at UCL

Dr Yasemin Didem Aktas is an Associate Professor in Applied Materials and Structures at UCL. Originally trained as a structural engineer, her research focuses on safeguarding historic buildings from earthquakes and other climate-related hazards.  

Reflecting on her journey through heritage science, she wrote,

My academic journey took me further into the realms of heritage science (MSc) and conservation engineering (PhD), equipping me with a unique skill set tailored to understanding, preserving and enhancing historic structures, whether it is a majestic temple of monumental proportions or a humble home built with indigenous knowledge and vernacular techniques. This multifaceted expertise has been instrumental in my role as a conservation and reuse engineer, where I blend scientific rigour with a profound respect for our architectural heritage, and more broadly, care for existing buildings.

Dr Aktas also contributed her expertise to post-disaster reconnaissance missions following the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Turkey.

Read Dr Aktas’ blog post about her route to heritage science here.

If you would like to find out more about training opportunities in heritage science visit the Training Opportunities page on our National Heritage Science Forum website or check out the Historic England Apprenticeships in the Heritage Sector.

Hiroshige’s ‘Plum Garden in Kameido’: Searching for the artist’s vision

National Heritage Science ForumLeave a comment

Guest Author: Capucine Korenberg, Research Scientist at The British Museum

On 1 May 2025, The British Museum opened its first ever exhibition on Utagawa Hiroshige (1797–1858), one of the last great masters of the Japanese ukiyo-e woodblock printing tradition. At NHSF, we are especially excited about this exhibition because it features some fantastic heritage science research, which has utilised Raman spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence, and imaging techniques to shed new light on Hiroshige’s prints. In this blog post, research scientist Capucine Korenberg specifically focuses on her findings on the colours in Hiroshige’s The Plum Garden in Kameido (1857).

First state, The British Museum, accession number: 1954,1113,0.29 (donated by Mrs Mabel B. Hopper)
Second state, The British Museum, accession number: 1948,0410,0.65 (donated by Henry Bergen).

Figure 1. Two states of The Plum Garden at Kameido. Images © The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Hiroshige’s print The Plum Garden at Kameido (1857) shows blossoming plum trees in a garden with distant figures at a teahouse. Today, we think of ukiyo-e prints as high art. However, in 17th-19th century Japan, they were mass-produced using carved woodblocks and affordable.

While Hiroshige designed The Plum Garden at Kameido, not all of its printings are a true reflection of his intentions. Over time, the woodblocks would distort, leading to misalignment, or become damaged. This necessitated modification, replacement or even omission of specific blocks. Also, for commercial reasons, publishers could commission later modifications to the design. All this resulted in different ‘states’ of the print.  Finally, the colours of surviving prints today might be different from what they were initially because of fading.

To capture Hiroshige’s intended design for The Plum Garden at Kameido, identifying early impressions and their original colours is essential. As the impressions lack dates or numbering, determining their relative chronology requires a detailed study of woodblock wear and alterations as evidenced in the impressions. After locating 82 surviving printings across the globe, I meticulously compared them, seeking indications within the impressions of changes to the original woodblocks. This analysis allowed me to identify four distinct states.

The first state of the print features a red sky gradation (Figure 1 left), which later changed to blue or purple (Figure 1 right). Also, subtle details like blue grass shading, the brown teahouse roof gradation and a brown tree base present in these early editions were later omitted. Such effects required additional resources and leaving them out would certainly reduce production costs. Changes to the yellow block, likely due to wood warping, are evident in a differently shaped yellow blossom heart after repair in the state 2 impressions. Continued distortion likely left some yellow areas unprinted in the third state. The fourth state corresponds to the use of an additional red woodblock.

When analysing the colourants on three The Plum Garden at Kameido impressions, I observed evidence of fading. In particular, studying the verso of a first state impression (Figure 1 left) revealed that the blue kimonos of two figures, which I identified as Prussian blue, were purple on the verso. Under ultraviolet light, orange luminescence in these areas suggested the presence of red safflower dye, which is very light sensitive. This indicated that the two kimonos were originally printed with a mixture of safflower and Prussian blue. The safflower dye faded on the recto, causing the purple kimonos to become blue. This also suggested that the pink hue of the sky in this impression was likely more intense originally and the grass greener. I concluded that the impression in the collection of the Brooklyn Museum (Figure 2), with its more vibrant colours, was a better representation of Hiroshige’s intended vision for The Plum Garden at Kameido.

This study of The Plum Garden at Kameido reveals the fascinating evolution of a single ukiyo-e design. Analysing surviving impressions allows us to glimpse Hiroshige’s original intent, often altered over time, with the vibrant Brooklyn Museum impression offering a compelling view of his initial artistic vision.

Figure 2: First state of The Plum Garden at Kameido, with well-preserved colours.  Brooklyn Museum, accession number: 30.1478.30 (Gift of Anna Ferris).  © Brooklyn Museum, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. 

To find out more about Dr Korenberg’s research and the exhibition, check out the following links: