Category: Public History

Public History

  • They Shall Not Be Forgotten: Remembering Tangmere’s aviation dead

    They Shall Not Be Forgotten: Remembering Tangmere’s aviation dead

    In this blog post, UoP students Lisa Pittman, Oliver Ballard, Jamie Edwards and Holly Scott-Wilds look at some of the men memorialised in the graveyard at St Andrew’s Church in Tangmere, West Sussex. All of these men were connected to aviation in the area, as Tangmere was the site of a significant airfield from the First World War. The work involved the group thinking about who was remembered, how and where, and reflecting on the practice of public history.

    Lisa, Oliver, Jamie and Holly produced this as part of their second-year module, ‘Working with the Past’, working with Tangmere local historian Paul Neary. The module helps build our students’ employability skills, via project work, often with external partners. This project involved the group, and Module Coordinator Mike Esbester, visiting Tangmere, hosted by Paul.

    In addition to this blog post, Lisa, Oliver, Jamie and Holly produced this leaflet, which we have had printed and has been distributed in and around Tangmere – a very tangible contribution to understanding the past in our area.

    RAF Tangmere

    An aerial photograph of RAF Tangmere in 1944.
    An aerial photograph of RAF Tangmere in 1944.

     

    Tangmere is a village east of Chichester in West Sussex. RAF Tangmere was founded there in 1917 to be used as a training base for the Royal Flying Corps, but was soon handed over to the U.S. Signal Corps to be used as a training facility. The base remained in this role until the end of the war in November 1918. After a break from active use, RAF Tangmere reopened in 1925 and was home to No.43 squadron.

    In 1939, the airfield was expanded so it could be used as a primary defence on the south coast against German aircraft. During this expansion, houses and other buildings were demolished to provide the necessary space. From 1939, only six to eight families were allowed to remain near the base, and the village did not resume its status as a civilian community until 1966.

    During the D-Day operations, RAF Tangmere played a key role, as it became the base for several squadrons for offensive actions.  Throughout the war, RAF Tangmere was the control centre for both offensive and defensive squadrons.

    In the years following the war, RAF Tangmere was the base for multiple squadrons from across the country. Between 1963-64, the last flying units left RAF Tangmere, but the base continued to be operational.

    The years leading up to the closure of the base, RAF Tangmere was used for personal flying and providing flying lessons. In 1968, the then-Prince Charles undertook his first flying lesson at Tangmere. The station finally closed on 16 October 1970, and has since been converted back to a mixture of housing and farmland.

    Given the close connections between village and airfield, St Andrew’s Church has a number of aviation personnel remembered in its churchyard, many of whom died in accidents or during the Second World War. Importantly, these aren’t just British personnel. As we might expect, there are also commonwealth connections, with New Zealanders, South Africans and Canadians present. Perhaps surprisingly, there are also German graves – men who died over Britain during the Second World War. As we discovered, this led to a moving and long-term connection between Germany and Tangmere. There is also a monument to all who died in aviation and with a connection to Tangmere – some of whom we’ve found out about here.

     

    Julius Charles Holland

    A black and white photograph of Julius Charles Holland
    Julius Charles Holland

     

    Julius Charles Holland was born on 17 October 1920 in Bombay, India, to Beryl Ethel and Julius Alfred Holland. He was educated at Bangor Grammar School. As a member of the RAF Reserve, he came into active service at the outbreak of the Second World War.

    On 22 July 1940 he was serving with 107 Squadron, as part of a night bombing mission to Creil airfield in northern France. He had attained the rank of Sergeant. Returning to RAF Wattisham in Suffolk in the morning of 23 July, his plane was lost, crashed in the Channel, and all men on board (Peter Watson, Bill O’Heaney, Julius Holland) died. Holland’s body washed ashore, and he was buried will full military honours at Tangmere.

    Holland was seen as a true embodiment of the wartime spirit and fearless till the end. Before his death, he wrote in letters to his mother that: “There is absolutely no danger of England losing this war…England is like a lion waking from sleep, a little drowsy, but in a minute ready to roar”. His faith in the United Kingdom was absolute, and his words give an insight into both resolve at the time and how some people took on board the patriotic messages of the time. There is of course discussion about the nature of the ‘wartime spirit’ in Great Britain and its contribution to Britain’s overall success on the front and throughout the war. Holland wrote: “so terrified is he of our bombers…England’s stake in this war can be helped by you as much as by us, every careless word spoken back home is but another bullet in my plane”. He was regarded as inspirational.

     

    Karl-Alfons Scheuplein, Otto Roger, Karl-Wilhelm Brinkbaumer, Josef Dietl and an unknown German serviceman

    Photograph of the grave of a german soldier.

    The crew of L1+BS were among the many German aircraft crews that attempted to break the Royal Air Force, in preparation for Operation Sealion, the German invasion of Great Britain.

    L1+BS were assigned to unit 8/LG-1. 8/LG-1 were a part of Lehrgeschwader 1, a training wing formed in 1936. Despite being created as a training wing, LG-1 was utilised as a multi-purpose unit that operated a number of different planes. These aircraft included: Messerschmitt Bf 109, Messerschmitt Bf 110, Dornier Do 17, Heinkel He 111, Junkers Ju 87 and the aircraft that L1+BS operated, Junkers Ju 88.

    The Junkers Ju 88 was a twin-engine multirole aircraft that was designed to merge the role of a bomber and a fighter. This made it perfectly suited to the Battle of Britain where it would come up against British fighters such as Hurricanes and Spitfires. The faster speed and smaller payload of 1,800-2,200Lb allowed for greater manoeuvrability and survivability relying less on fighter craft for screening.

    On 13 August 1940, L1+BS was involved in an air raid on Andover. It was shot down by a Hurricane fighter from 257 Squadron and crashed in Sidlesham, south of Chichester. All five of the crew members died in the crash and are commemorated in Tangmere at St Andrew’s Church.

    L1+BS was commanded by Karl-Alfons Scheuplein; he was given the rank of Major posthumously. Scheuplein was awarded the Bomber Operational Clasp for completing at least sixty days of operational duty. He was accompanied by Leutnant zur See Karl-Wilhelm Brinkbaumer who was a naval officer assigned to 8/LG-1, Gefreiter Otto Roger, Gefreiter Josef Dietl and an unnamed crewmember.

    Scheuplein and his crew were based in Chateaudun, a French airfield; that was captured by the Nazis in June 1940 during the Battle of France. Chateaudun became one of the many previously-French airfields that the Nazis used as bases of attack during the Battle of Britain.

    Scheuplein had a wife, two sons and a daughter, when his plane crashed. His family was only told that he was missing as the Luftwaffe would not have had confirmation of his death. In 1941 his wife was informed of his death through the Red Cross. After the war the crew’s final resting place was sent to their relatives through war graves organisations from both countries. Scheuplein’s widow, Lore, in particular made many trips to Tangmere to see her husband’s grave. On one trip she met one of the founders of the Tangmere Military Aviation Museum and the Vicar of St Andrews Church. This developed into a close relationship between Tangmere and the Scheupleins, which resulted in significant donations being made to both the Church and the Museum.

    Through this close relationship Lore Scheuplein requested that her ashes be interred in her husband’s grave. This request was approved and on the 23rd of July 2008 Lore’s ashes were interred in her husband’s grave. Scheuplein’s daughter Barbara, only 10 months old when her father died, made the arrangements and ensured her mother’s final wishes were carried out.

     

    William Frederick George West

    Born in Bristol in 1913, William ‘Bill’ West worked for Mardon Son & Hall printers before the Second World War. He joined the Royal Air Force as part of the Auxilliary Air Force, service number 813222, second class Aircraftman. This was the lowest rank which meant he wouldn’t have any specialities such as flying and would mainly complete other tasks.

    The Auxiliary Air Force was a component of the RAF, formed in October 1924. The main function of the AAF was to back up and provide reinforcements to the regular services. The AAF was primarily made up of volunteers who were paid to give up their weekends. During the Second World War the AAF supplied the RAF with 14 out of 62 squadrons and also accounted for 30% of enemy kills. Another purpose of the AAF was to supply anti-aircraft defences, such as balloon defences at the start of the war.

    AAF members were still exposed to danger – including West. He died in an air raid on RAF Tangmere on 16 August 1940. Before this, a young school boy who attended Hanham Abbots School in Bristol, close to West’s home, had hoped to supply West with a homemade knitted scarf. Tragically it never reached him, as he had been killed in an air raid on RAF Tangmere on 16 August 1940.

    West received the 1939–45 Star Medal, and 1939–1945 War Medal. The Star Medal was awarded to personnel who completed six months overseas service. In certain cases, the minimum period was shortened (including death, injury and capture). The War Medal 1939-1945 was awarded to personnel who served for at least 28 days between 3 September 1939 and 2 September 1945.

     

    Richard Ernest Austin

    Richard Ernest Austin was another second class Aircraftman, though as a member of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. His service number was 1350800.

    Richard also died in the air raid on 16 August 1940. What is very interesting about Richard is his family connection to the military. His father was Leading Seaman Walter Henry Austin, in the Royal Navy. His mother was Lillian Elizabeth Austin and the family were from Uplyme, Devon.

    Walter Henry Austin sadly died the same year as his son and was killed at the age of 43. His death came just a few months after his son’s death, on the 3rd of November 1940.

    Richard was buried at Tangmere; his father is commemorated on the Plymouth Naval Memorial.

     

    Harry Hamilton Peck

    Harry H. Peck was born in Montreal, Canada, in 1911. Entering college in 1930, Peck quickly made a name himself within football, hockey, boxing and track sports. He went on to earn the Prince of Wales’ cup for the best cadet in athletics, as well as the ‘Tommy Smart’ cup for the best all-round cadet in athletics during the college year.

    Peck graduated in 1934, and in 1935 was one of two officers selected from the Royal Canadian Air Force to qualify for permanent commissions with the British Royal Air Force.  At the time of his death, Flight-Lieutenant Peck was attached to No. 1 Fighting squadron, based at Tangmere, Sussex.

    Peck died on 17 December 1937 after a mid-air collision during formation aerobatics near Stansted Park, flying a Hawker Fury I. Sergeant Robert Edmund Patten was the other pilot killed during the collision.  Patten was Born 14 December 1911 in Paris, France. He joined the RAF on 14 December 1929, and lived in Eartham, West Sussex.

    The No.1 Squadron was founded in 1878 when its predecessor, No. 1 Balloon Company, was formed at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. On 13 May 1912, the Company was redesignated No.1 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps. The main role of the company was reconnaissance, with a few single seat fighters for escort purposes. Between the wars, the squadron gained a reputation for aerobatics, providing displays across the United Kingdom and at the Zurich International Air Meeting in July 1937.  From September 1939 until May 1940, the squadron was based north-west of Paris as part of the RAF Advanced Air Striking force. Following a series of bombing at the Paris base, the squadron returned to Tangmere on 23 June 1940. The squadron was heavily involved in the Battle of Britain and Battle of France.

     

    Squadron Leader Caesar Barrand Hull

    Caesar Barrand Hull was born on 26 February 1914 in Shangani, Southern Rhodesia. Hull’s father was involved in the Western Desert Campaign in Egypt and Libya during World War One.  After leaving school, Hull temporarily returned to the family farm in South Africa, before going to work for a mining company in M’Babane, Swaziland.   Before his time in the military, Hull was a champion boxer, representing South Africa in the lightweight division at the 1934 Empire Games in London.

    Hull was originally turned down by the South African Air Force in 1935 because he did not speak Afrikaans. In September 1935, Hull joined the British Royal Air Force and joined No.43 Squadron at RAF Tangmere.

    No.43 Squadron was originally formed in April 1916 as part of the Royal Flying Corps. The Squadron produced a number of ‘aces’ during the war. An ‘ace’ was a military aviator credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft during aerial combat. The Squadron carried out fighter reconnaissance duties along the western front from January 1917. From September 1917 until the end of the war, the Squadron undertook ground attack duties. Part of the No.43 Squadron was the No.266 (Rhodesia) Squadron, which carried out anti-submarine patrols near Greece during the First World War, before disbanding on 1st September 1919 and being reformed on 30 October 1939 as a fighter squadron.

    On 26 May 1940, Hull received the Distinguished Flying Cross after the Norwegian campaign, where he shot down four German aircraft in an hour. However, Hull was shot down the next day, and was transported back to England after sustaining head and knee injuries. He returned to active service in August 1940.

    During the war, Hull had eight confirmed aerial victories, five of which occurred over Norway. Hull was killed during a dogfight whilst defending against a German flyover heading to London over Kent. Hull’s death greatly impacted the morale of the Squadron during the remainder of the war.

    In the years following his death, several memorials dedicated to Hull’s memory were produced in a number of locations, including his hometown, Norway and Purley. His hometown memorial, a flint plinth, has since been donated to the Tangmere Aviation Museum.

     

    Why is studying public history important and what are the challenges?

    Researching public history, as we have in this project, comes with its fair share of both rewards and challenges. For example, delving into public history can come with a plethora of unwanted truths about the past that many would prefer remained lost to time. However, public history can provide historians with a rich source of information that provides crucial evidence to prove theories or change the perception of the subject in question entirely. When public history is left unexplored, history as a whole is left incomplete.

    When it came to researching fallen airmen buried at St Andrew’s Church in Tangmere, we were faced with potentially uncovering personal family secrets that even decades later could cause unwanted distress to the surviving families of the individuals under scrutiny. These include, but are not limited to, family affairs, unknown family ties, or criminal pasts. We had to handle the project with care and awareness, careful to not intrude too far into personal history, but still uncover the identities of the individuals buried and the lives they led before they died. We did this by thoroughly combing public resources such as documents published by the Royal Air Force; these would uncover how the deaths of the English fallen were recorded at the time and if the fallen had any known next of kin. Unfortunately, during World War Two newspapers stopped recording deaths due to the catastrophically high number of losses caused by the war. Therefore, we were limited to resources publicised by the Royal Air Force, partially handicapping our inquiries due to the fact that not all records have yet been digitised. To fill any gaps in our knowledge that this restriction would have made, would require a visit to London and an individual evaluation of each physical record. This would not have been practical due to the project time parameters and existing commitments; fortunately, no such visit was warranted. The information provided by the Royal Air Force was able to provide us with sufficient information regarding the British airmen buried in Tangmere, without causing emotional distress to the surviving descendants.

    Thus, we were able to reap the rewards public history has to offer and successfully navigated the sensitive nature of researching public history. The knowledge we have gathered from this project has contributed to a larger image of the wartime experience and honoured previously unacknowledged heroes. This is important because it ensures that future generations are aware of the sacrifices that bought their freedom.

    Our thanks to Paul Neary for his guidance and enthusiasm for our work, and for hosting us on our visit to Tangmere.

    Memorial window in Tangmere church.
    Memorial window in Tangmere church.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • A tour of Portsmouth’s history

    A tour of Portsmouth’s history

    One of our UoP history students, Archie McDermott-Paintin, appears in this university video, giving a tour of some of Portsmouth’s history, from the historic dockyard to contemporary community activism.  Archie studied for a degree in history with the department, and is now doing a master’s degree in Victorian Gothic studies.

  • Working with oral histories of the 1976 Grunwick strike

    Working with oral histories of the 1976 Grunwick strike

    As part of their work on the second year core module ‘Working with the Past’, three University of Portsmouth History students – Katie Kinnes, Izzy Henman and Tom Lacey – collaborated with Modern Records Centre at the University of Warwick (MRC). They summarised oral history interviews relating to the landmark Grunwick Strike of the 1970s. This will aid researchers using the MRC to find out more about the Strike, as well as helping Katie, Izzy and Tom gain valuable experience of work in an archives environment. This blog post arises from their work as they reflect upon what they did, the skills they gained and the Grunwick Strike itself.

    Photograph of the Grunwick mural
    Grunwick mural, 2017; source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11561957@N06/

    We chose to create a project around the Grunwick dispute and were given interviews of the people involved, held at the Modern Records Centre at the University of Warwick (MRC), and which needed summarising to make them easily useable by researchers. Before tackling the interviews, we did some research around the topic.

    The Grunwick dispute was one of many strikes that occurred throughout the 1970s. It began in 1976 in the Grunwick Film Processing Laboratories, which was owned by George Ward. Mathew Lyons has estimated that out of the 490 employees, some 137 joined the trade union called APEX, therefore becoming part of the strike.[1] But what sparked the dispute?

    The firing of a young woman named Devshi Bhudia led to many others walking out in protest, instigated by a Gujarati woman called Jayaben Desai. Many of the workers were of different ethnic origins, so this dispute became of public interest. Another significance of this dispute is that it was one of the first times the trade union movement supported immigrant workers.[2] This was important because the trade unions were predominantly led by white men, so Grunwick was special for gaining support from APEX.

    Why were they striking? The workers were claiming their pay was insufficient and they had poor working conditions – for example, they had to get permission to use the toilet and overtime was made compulsory. Additionally, the female workers were being paid significantly less than men, despite the Equal Pay Act of 1970.

    Once the strike began, the Union of Post Office Workers decided to boycott, refusing to deliver mail across the picket lines. The postmen who refused to deliver Grunwick’s mail were suspended for disrupting the postal service. The dispute continued for another two years, with the mass picketing coming to a head in the summer of 1977, with around 20,000 marchers. This gained a great deal of media coverage and increasing numbers of police using aggressive tactics to subdue the picketing lines – however this led to violence on many occasions.

    There was much political involvement in this dispute, with three Labour ministers in particular who supported APEX joining the picket lines in the summer of 1977. These were Shirley Williams, Fred Mulley and Denis Howell. Although the strike was called off in July 1978, the strikers did not gain anything. Having said that, they were led to believe their demands would be met, as the Scarman Inquiry was set to reinstate the workers. However the report was rejected by George Ward, so the workers were not reinstated, and the union was not recognised. This led to them losing the support of other unions, so they did not have a leg to stand on, leaving them with no choice but to end the dispute.

    However, even after researching the dispute, the idea of undertaking summaries for some interviews was still a daunting task as none of us had produced anything like this before. We began by trying to identify the intention behind the summaries. A problem we encountered during this stage was we had little knowledge of what exactly needed to be included to make it useful. To overcome this, we worked as a group to research what exactly makes a good summary, while talking to our contact at the MRC, James King, to make sure it was precisely what they wanted. It allowed us to conclude that the summary did not have to be an exact word-for-word copy of the interviews. Instead, we designed it to pull out key themes and points of interest, similar to the previous interviews already summarised.

    When working through the transcripts we condensed it down to only using the parts we deemed to be significant and bullet pointing any useful information to go underneath. Again, similar to the example pieces that we were provided with, we used time stamps when marking any relevant information, as it would allow anybody reading the transcript the chance to quickly jump to the relevant part of the interview for them. However, another stumbling block we encountered was trying to determine who our summaries would be aimed at. After some deliberation and research, we arrived at a decision that it would work best if it was aimed at anyone looking to learn more about the individuals, while also being useful for anyone who wants to learn more about the event as a whole.

    From this point we worked at summarising as many of the interviews as we could. Each interview we summarised only had one individual being interviewed making it easier for us to focus on what they were saying rather than trying to balance two interviewees. To do this in the most efficient way we went through the list of interviews provided to us by James at the MRC, and assigned one interview to each group member, enabling us to get through more interviews in a shorter space of time. If we thought a particular part was important, we made sure to listen to the entire sentence before beginning to summarise and transcribe it so we could understand context and avoid misunderstandings.

    During the summarising process we also made sure to know as many of the relevant abbreviations and names to give us a better understanding of the significance of different points during each interview. But to ensure our summaries were up to the same standard and in a similar style we sent our interview to the other group members to have them double-check it. To better make sure it was up to the quality of our MRC contact, we each sent the transcript to them, giving us edits and any extra useful information we were yet to include.

    If anyone is thinking of taking on a similar task: it takes longer than you think! After choosing the interviews we would be working on individually, we definitely underestimated the amount of time that it would take to complete a full one. A task we thought would take an hour took us multiple, so it was important that we began to set aside time to complete it. Initially, we thought we would be able to complete multiple interviews from the list that we’d been given, but this was an overestimation. Because of the time it took to complete them, we found the deadline fast approaching having only done one. Though I think this was also due to waiting for feedback on our work also, which was ultimately out of our control – a challenge of working in a team and relying on others who had other deadlines.

    It also takes a lot of concentration to complete. It is especially difficult when the interviewees are sometimes a bit difficult to understand due to accents, etc, so this is also something to bear in mind. It may have been due to the age of those who had been interviewed and where they had come from, but this hadn’t been something that we had thought would be much of an issue, until we began to complete the summaries. This also added more time onto the task, as we’d have to watch parts a few different times to make sure we were getting the most out of it.

    The task was definitely valuable in other things that it taught us. We improved our group collaboration skills and also learnt how to take important details out of a wider source in order to get the most out of the task. This was probably the most difficult thing for us. We had to decide on the audience – who would be reading these summaries, such as what kind of historians or researchers – then try and deduce what kind of things may be useful for them. We spoke as a group a few times and even consulted our outside contact at the MRC as to just what would be most beneficial to those who would go on to use our summaries. This had been an issue we’d had from the start of the process, so it was important to us to all be on the same page about what to note down. This is probably one of the most important aspects of summarising sources, so make sure you’re clear of how to make sure the audience gets the most out of the piece, otherwise it isn’t as valuable as an aid.

    While this process has its difficulties, we learnt a lot of valuable skills and what kind of things to consider before undertaking a task such as this. Alongside just being a fulfilling experience, knowing that we would be helping researchers and a recognised archive institution with their work was important, and the skills we learnt will be of great use in the future.

    Katie Kinnes, Izzy Henman and Tom Lacey

    The MRC’s holdings relating to Grunwick – including the summary Katie, Izzy and Tom worked on – can be found here.

    [1] Mathew Lyons, “The Grunwick Dispute Begins” History Today, Vol. 72, no. 8 (2022)

    [2] Mathew Lyons, “The Grunwick Dispute Begins” History Today, Vol. 72, no. 8 (2022)

  • An inventory of Henry VIII’s navy

    An inventory of Henry VIII’s navy

    UoP second-year history student Francesca Raine has recently had a guest blog published for the Mary Rose collections, discussing the Anthony Roll.  This list of Henry VIII’s ships was presented to King Henry VIII in 1546 by its creator Anthony Anthony, an official of the Ordnance.  Beneath each ship is an individual inventory detailing information on the weaponry, crew, and tonnage, an in-depth Tudor catalogue. This document holds the only illustration and final report of the Mary Rose from its active life.  Click here to read more.

  • The Lost Crafts of the Past

    The Lost Crafts of the Past

    As part of their work on the second year core module ‘Working with the Past’, three University of Portsmouth History students – Chanel Parker, Loraya Head, and Gemma Norris – collaborated with Portsmouth Museum and Art Gallery to curate a three-month exhibition that both celebrated the crafts of our ancestors and highlighted the importance of preserving the craftspeoples’ skills for future generations. In this blog, written for Hampshire Archives Trust, Chanel Parker discusses the research methods the group used when curating the exhibition.

    ‘Working with the Past’ is coordinated by Mike Esbester.

    To read the blog, click this link.

     

    Slider image courtesy of Birmingham Museums Trust

  • Enhancing students’ skills and experiences: A Twitter takeover, an exhibition and a podcast

    Enhancing students’ skills and experiences: A Twitter takeover, an exhibition and a podcast

    As a team we always encourage our students to enhance their skills while studying for their History degree with us, and one way we do this is by offering them opportunities to work with some of our external partners. In this post, we demonstrate how this is undertaken in one second year core module, ‘Working with the Past, co-ordinated by Dr Mike Esbester.

    As part of their studies during their History degree, our students have worked with a range of local and international institutions, including the Mary Rose Museum, Lloyd’s Register Foundation,  the D-Day Story archive, Hong Kong Baptist University, and Pompey History Society, and have undertaken a wide variety of interesting projects over the years.

    One of our second year core modules, ‘Working with the Past’, is set up to specifically foster this type of collaboration. In the module we demonstrate how the practice of academic history can be transferred and applied to a vast range of practical projects that involve thinking about, working with, or drawing-upon knowledge and understanding of the past (you’ll find blogs on some of these projects elsewhere on this site).

    Portsmouth Museum and Art Gallery

     

    This year, one group of students have been working with Portsmouth Museum and Art Gallery on their new #EndangeredCrafts exhibition. Having taken inspiration from the Heritage Crafts ‘Red List of Endangered Crafts’, the Museum will hold an exhibition that highlights the objects that are held in its collections that represent traditional crafts that are at risk of disappearing. This disappearance, the Museum notes on its website, “is due to the individuals holding the knowledge and skills being unable to make provision to pass them on to the next generation”.

    Our students, Chanel, Gemma and Loraya, in collaboration with Museum staff and under the supervision of our Dr Maria Cannon, have held a Twitter takeover (on 11 May 2023), put together a research panel (coming soon!) and recorded a podcast, which is published on the Museum’s website. To hear the podcast, go to the Portsmouth Museum and Art Gallery website here.

     

    https://portsmouthmuseum.co.uk/what-to-see-do/special-displays/endangered-crafts/