Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH PAPERS
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 19 (2009): 55-66
Second World War Archaeology in Schools: A Backdoor to
the History Curriculum?
Gabriel Moshenska
UCL Institute of Archaeology
The absence of a compulsory archaeological element in the English National Curriculum
is a systemic weakness, and a problem for archaeological educators. However, historical
or post-medieval archaeology offers the opportunity to make connections with the existing
history curriculum at various stages, thereby introducing elements of archaeological methods
and concepts into classrooms. In this paper I consider the potential for Second World War
archaeology in or around the school building itself to involve students in archaeological
eldwork integrated into the National Curriculum, specically history at Key Stage Two.
Drawing on a case study of a school air raid shelter excavation in North London I examine
the strengths and weaknesses of this model and discuss the scope for its broader application.
Keywords
Community archaeology, education, historical archaeology, National Curriculum, Sec-
ond World War
Introduction
The challenge of teaching primary school students about archaeology is made more
difcult in England by the limitations of the National Curriculum for history, which
delineates what is taught in schools (National Curriculum 2008). Although there are
optional units on the Indus Valley civilisation, the Romans, Vikings and others, and vis-
its to historic sites are theoretically encouraged, there is little opportunity for primary
school students to observe or engage with archaeological materials and processes. This
is one of the main stumbling blocks in campaigns for lifelong learning in archaeology
promoted by the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) and others (Henson 2004a).
Post-medieval or historical archaeology, along with industrial archaeology, offer a
unique opportunity for school students to encounter the archaeological process in the
context of historical periods and local sites which they are more likely to be familiar
with already. The advantages of such work would be numerous, including the potential
for more diverse teaching and learning techniques as well as connections with local his-
tory and oral history work. It also sidesteps many of the common objections to doing
archaeology with young children (see Pretty 1983: 14).
In this paper I will focus specically on the archaeology of the Blitz in English schools,
particularly the archaeological and educational potential of the school air raid shelter.
This includes a discussion of the Second World War unit in history at Key Stage Two
(hereafter KS2), and the strengths and limitations of the archaeological resource in
question. My case study is taken from a project to excavate and clear a large air raid
shelter located beneath the playing eld at Edgware Junior School in North London.
This project included elements of historical documentary research and oral history in-
56
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
terviewing as well as the survey and excavation. It also involved classroom and site-
based learning for the school students, including but not limited to students who had
studied the Second World War the previous term.
In concluding I critically examine this case study in relation to the issues raised earlier,
and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this approach to archaeological education.
First, however, I will consider in more depth the state of archaeology in the National
Curriculum for history at KS2.
Archaeology in the National Curriculum
[Archaeology] cannot be accepted by society as a useful discipline, worth
fostering and protecting, if we set ourselves above that society as the
intellectual few acting on behalf of the ignorant many. In this, we need
to learn the lessons of the school curricula, which seek to equip pupils not
just with historical knowledge but also with the skills to make their own
judgements and interpretations (Henson 2004b: 30).
Archaeology graduates usually nd it difcult if not impossible to get accepted onto
teacher training courses, as archaeology is not a curriculum subject and is generally not
taught in schools. The paucity of archaeological knowledge amongst school teachers
thereby becomes a self-perpetuating problem (Corbishley 1999: 77). The CBA cam-
paigns actively both for greater levels of archaeological education in schools and better
access to teaching for graduates, but progress is slow.
However, all is not lost. There are plenty of areas in England’s history curriculum
where archaeology can be introduced by sympathetic and knowledgeable educators,
given the right resources, support and encouragement. Across the different Key Stages
teachers are encouraged to promote the use of non-documentary sources including ar-
tefacts, buildings and historic sites (Henson 2004a). In this way the guidelines, if fol-
lowed, expose students to historical material culture in the broadest sense allowing
them to consider issues of archaeological interpretation, although the archaeological
process itself remains in the background. In addition school trips to museums and sites
are increasingly hampered by child protection and health and safety issues. However
as Dhanjal (2005: 37) has observed, “It is easier to t archaeology into the KS2 cur-
riculum, and it is easier for teachers to take this age group on school outings”. There is
also the option for students at KS1 and KS2 to carry out units on past societies includ-
ing the Romans and Mesopotamia; in addition the changes to the curriculum in 2000
introduced a modicum of prehistory into KS2 history. Nevertheless archaeology is not
generally considered in relation to these topics until KS3 at the earliest, if at all (Henson
2004a: 16; 19).
History in schools is an integral element of the citizenship agenda in education, a recent
and altogether sinister development in the curriculum. However, such exercises in jin-
goistic chauvinism are likely to include archaeological elements, with a stronger focus
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
57
on prehistoric sites and artefacts that reinforce nationalist mythologies. This is a high
price to pay for archaeology in the curriculum, and one that in my opinion archaeologi-
cal educators should not rush to embrace. For more detailed and broader discussions of
archaeology in the curriculum see Corbishley (1999) and Henson (1997; 2000).
The Second World War in the History Curriculum
The 2007 History Schemes of Work for primary school students at KS2 includes ‘Unit
9: What was it like for children in the Second World War?’ (DfES 2007). This is a
popular unit, drawing on a wide range of resources including museums and children’s
literature. Local history is a strong element in this unit, making the subject more im-
mediately relevant to the students: teachers are encouraged to arrange visits from older
local residents to talk about their experiences, supplemented by local history publica-
tions such as published oral histories. The unit of the Scheme of Work covers ten
distinct areas of study:
1. What was the Second World War? When and where did it take place?
2. What was the Blitz?
3. Why were children evacuated?
4. What was it like to be an evacuee?
5. What did people eat during the war?
6. In what other ways might the war have affected people?
7. What were children’s experiences of the war?
8. What was it like to be a child living in this area in World War II?
9. How did the Second World War affect children who lived in this locality?
10.What has been done since to prevent another world war?
(DfES 2007)
These sections and the emphasis on children’s experiences demonstrate an overwhelm-
ing and arguably disproportionate focus on the Home Front, rather negating the idea
of a world war which is only tackled at KS3 and KS4. Nevertheless, this structure is
ideally suited to integration into local history and archaeology. The guidance for sec-
tion two on the Blitz includes the suggestion that “It may be possible to show children
local evidence of bomb damage, e.g. damaged buildings, derelict land, prefab housing”
(DfES 2007). It is not immediately taken into consideration that the fabric and grounds
of the school itself might contain a great deal of evidence linking it to the narrative
history of the war. However ‘Learning Outside the Classroom’, a recent initiative pro-
moted by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), encourages the
use of the school grounds and buildings as resources for formal and informal learning
(DfES 2006).
A historical archaeology of the Second World War is highly likely to be interdisci-
plinary, applying a range of research techniques to any specic site or locale. These
techniques, including building survey, documentary research, oral history interviews
and topographical surveys are similar or identical to many of the techniques discussed
in the guidance for teachers. Clearly there is potential for cooperation, but it must be
58
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
noted even at this point that any archaeological education based on this work will need
to emphasise the diversity of archaeological research in pre- and proto-historic as well
as more recent historic periods to avoid confusion and false impressions. This and
similar points were raised by Starmer (1983) in his discussion of industrial archaeology
for schools.
The Archaeological Resource: Schools at War
School buildings in Britain are very likely to contain traces of modications and use
dating from the Second World War. This is largely due to the confusion and changes in
government policies on evacuation during the earliest months of the war in 1939 and
1940. The policy of evacuating up to 1.5 million school students and their teachers,
as well as pregnant women, was planned months in advance and put into effect at the
outbreak of hostilities (Calder 1969). However, during the quiet rst months of the war
when very few cities were bombed, the so-called ‘phoney war’, a large proportion of
the urban evacuees began to return home from their safe rural reception areas.
Most of these children returned to nd their schools closed, apparently for the duration,
with responsibility for the buildings often passing to the local Air Raid Precautions
administrations, re brigade, the military or similar (Hussey 2003). However, as the
realities of the numbers of returning evacuees began to sink in, schools began to re-
open. Even before the war the Board of Education had released circulars advising on
modications to school buildings to provide safe areas for air raids. However, these
guidelines recognised the lack of suitability of many school buildings and advised the
construction of air raid shelters on school playing elds, neither too near nor too far
from the school itself. The rules for the construction of the shelters are quite rigid,
specifying their height, means of drainage, gas-proong and roong, as well as the
amount of seating space per child. The most important limitation was on capacity: no
more than fty children were to be sheltered in any one structure or room, presumably
to minimise casualties in the event of a direct hit (Board of Education 1939). In the
post-war period most local councils were instructed to seal the school and other munici-
pal air raid shelters for possible future use. Some have since been destroyed by devel-
opment, but many remain as time-capsules from the 1940s, waiting to be discovered.
On the basis of these convoluted processes and events, schools of a certain age are
likely to contain evidence of wartime modications in a number of respects. They
might contain the remnants of modications carried out in 1939 to convert them into
gas de-contamination centres, Air Raid Precautions operations centres, emergency re
stations, casualty clearing stations or any number of military uses (O’Brien 1955). In
addition they are more than likely to have basement rooms modied for air raid protec-
tion or air raid shelters or the remains of shelters on or beneath the playing elds. The
archaeological potential of these structures is worth considering from both a research
perspective and pedagogical one. The following case study demonstrates the possibili-
ties of combining these approaches, offering a community archaeology of the Second
World War for school students, in school and with the school.
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
59
Case Study: Edgware Junior School
Civil Defence is a neglected area in British battleeld archaeology; Coad asks “what
survives of the huge public and private shelter-building programme?” and concludes
that “the tangible evidence for… 20th-century warfare, with all that it can teach us
about the horrors of modern weaponry, is apparently now surprisingly scarce” (2005:
231). Schoeld’s research agenda for modern military sites raises the idea that civil
defence sites lend themselves to “project work, where local sources can be compared to
eld remains, and oral testimonials” (2004: 46). This is precisely what we set out to do
at Edgware Junior School, and a short report on the project has subsequently been pub-
lished (Moshenska 2007). It is important to note that the impetus for this project came
from the school teachers who identied the site, decided to investigate further, and con-
tacted the local archaeology society for advice, at which point our involvement began.
The outline of a concrete structure, later identied as a staircase, had been gradually
revealed at the side of the eld by soil erosion. While staff at the school were aware that
air raid shelters had been built there, their exact locations had remained unknown; I vis-
ited the school and the project was born in discussion with staff. The principal aims of
the project were to evaluate the structure and contents of the shelter, and to use it as a re-
source for teaching students about the Second World War, which Year 6 students (aged
10 to 11) study in the autumn term. As a community archaeology project the shelters
were ideal, and there was enthusiastic support for the work from the staff, grounds staff
and students. The educational aims were less ambitious but nonetheless unusual in
the circumstances: I intended to use the site to teach the students about archaeological
methods and eldwork practices, backed up by presentations. The Year 6 students’
prior knowledge of the Second World War would be used as the basis for classroom ses-
sions. The connections between the historical period and the archaeological methods
were intended to be clear, but it was also vital to emphasise the importance of historical
and oral sources, and the interconnections between the three.
Historical Sources
The school log-book recorded events at and around the school throughout the war,
including air raid drills and bombing; this was one of the most useful historical sources
for this research. The Barnet Archives, encompassing the archives of the old Hendon
Borough Council, were of great use: the minutes of the education committee together
with the borough engineer’s reports give an excellent record of civil defence provision
in local schools. Board of Education circulars were also consulted as relevant, and
the Imperial War Museum library provided an excellent series of sources on air raid
shelters. In retrospect this element of the research could have been communicated to
the students earlier and more fully, but it was felt at the time that archival work was not
as racy or spectacular as the excavation work it inevitably precedes by some weeks or
months. In the event a summary of the process of archival work was included in the
information given to students at the excavation site during the eldwork itself.
From the sources we know that the school was used as a re station during the war, as
they record £432 compensation for damage to the school by the National Fire Service
(Hendon Education Committee 1946), and one of the exterior walls has a sign reading
60
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
‘WATCH ROOM’ painted on it (Fig. 1). However, the school did not stay closed long:
from the outbreak of war in September 1939 classes were taught for a time in homes
and local church halls. The construction of shelters began almost immediately, and as
they were completed classes gradually returned to Edgware School; by early 1940 six
shelters were completed and a further seven were later added (Edgware School Log-
book 1940). Over the following years the shelters were adapted and renovated includ-
ing the provision of lighting, seating, chemical toilets, heating and ventilation. The
aims of these modications were to allow teaching to continue in the shelters, as more
and more lessons were interrupted by air raid warnings (Hendon Education Committee
1941). A cutting from the Evening Standard shows a class being taught geography in
one of the shelters at Edgware School sometime in 1940. Following the cessation of
hostilities, the shelters at Edgware School were stripped out and sealed with concrete
by the borough engineer. Nowhere in these sources is there any indication of the loca-
tion, type or construction methods of the school air raid shelters. To answer these ques-
tions and to evaluate the state of the shelters we began to survey and excavate the site.
Figure 1. WATCH ROOM: painted sign on the wall of a school building.
Excavation and Survey
A resistivity survey was carried out some months before the excavation on the school
eld where the shelter is located, revealing a further seven shelters beneath the grass
football pitch. A few school students were present and we explained our strange activi-
ties as far as we could. At this point the project was still speculative and we had no
coherent educational aims. In any case, the principles of resistivity are probably not the
best place to begin the archaeological education of young children or, indeed, anyone
else.
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
61
The subsequent excavation of the air raid shelter was in two parts: the main project
was to clear the soil that sealed the concrete staircase (Fig. 2); the second was a smaller
trench designed to expose the roof of the shelter from above. The purpose of the sec-
ond was twofold: partly to illuminate methods of construction and waterproong, but
mainly to provide an example of more typical archaeological excavation with a regular
rectangular trench dug in layers, rather than a concrete-lined hole with a uniform ll of
rubble and mud. As well as the roof of the shelter at a depth of half a metre, the trench
produced fragments of medieval and post-medieval pottery and a halfpenny dating to
1852.
Figure 2. The entrance of the shelter, following excavation.
In the rst three days of the excavation all of the school students were brought out by
teachers and classroom assistants, one class at a time, to see the work in progress and to
have it explained to them. These talks, illustrated with artefacts, were presented by the
UCL Institute of Archaeology Widening Participation and Diversity Ofcer who was
assisting with the project (Fig. 3). The talks were interactive and included some lively
discussions that revealed some surprising levels of knowledge about both archaeology
and the Second World War.
Once the staircase was cleared we were able to gain access to the shelter; an exciting
moment! The structure was fteen metres long and around two metres wide and high.
The interior was rather bare, containing metal ttings for seats and toilet cubicles at ei-
ther end. There were the remains of electrical ttings on the walls, and a free-standing
gas heater was found buried at the bottom of the stairs. Most interestingly there were
a series of maths problems chalked on the end wall of the shelter, clear evidence that
it had been used as a classroom with lessons continuing during the air raids. The only
62
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
other grafti we discovered was an image of a sailing ship in yellow chalk or crayon
on one of the side walls.
Figure 3. Explaning the archaeological process on site.
For health and safety reasons the school students were not allowed to go below ground
during the survey and excavation; indeed we made sure they never came within 1.5m
of the sides of the trench. However, once the structure had been judged to be safe the
school allowed a small group of students to enter. There was a great heap of rubble and
rubbish at the end furthest from the staircase beneath the sealed emergency exit, and it
was decided in consultation with the school that some of the students should be allowed
to excavate this under close supervision. The rubbish heap yielded some remarkable
artefacts including children’s toys, car parts, glass bottles and jars, and assorted shoes
and items of clothing. In these circumstances health and safety was of vital importance
and all appropriate precautions were taken.
Memory Work
In the middle of the excavation we arranged for Mrs Tessa Smith who had been a stu-
dent at the school during the war to visit the site so that she could see the shelter, record
an oral history interview and talk to the students about her memories of wartime educa-
tion. We recorded over an hour of interviews with Mrs Smith in a number of places:
around the excavation, walking through the playground, and in a classroom. The inter-
views covered her childhood in general, her memories of the war and her memories of
the school, which were wonderfully sharp and irreverent.
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
63
During the interviews in the playground we were repeatedly approached by groups of
children who had already seen the excavation and been told about Mrs Smith’s visit.
They were politely curious and asked a series of questions, some of a very high stand-
ard such as “Do you remember what it smelt like in the shelter?”, “How old were you in
the war?” and “Were you scared?” (Fig. 4). The spontaneity of these questions and the
intense interest they demonstrated were both surprising and rewarding. I would argue
that the sense of the excavation as an exciting and unusual event or performance had
created more of a buzz around the school than an ordinary history project could have.
The nal part of the interview took place in a classroom with a Year 6 class who had
recently studied the Second World War and carried out a project, which had included
covering windows in criss-crossed tape as they had been in 1940. In this case the ques-
tions were more orderly and better informed, albeit in curious ways. The students had
clearly absorbed a great deal from the ction they had read, particularly Robert West-
all’s The Machine Gunners and Michelle Magorian’s Goodnight Mr Tom. This was
expressed in some strange questions such as “Did you ever nd a German plane with a
dead person in it?”. However most of the questions were more focused on changes to
the school since 1945 and issues such as rationing, evacuation and bombing, as well as
life in the air raid shelters. The teacher handled the session sensitively; in any case Mrs
Smith had worked as a teacher before her retirement so her manner in dealing with the
students was expert.
Figure 4. Impromptu oral history work in the playground.
Archaeological Education
During the visits to the site we explained the basics of archaeological eldwork practice
to the students. We pointed out earthworks visible on the surface, and briey explained
64
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
that we have machines that can see different things under the ground. To draw these
disparate elements together into a more coherent understanding of the project we ar-
ranged for the UCL Institute of Archaeology Widening Participation team to give an
assembly presentation to the entire school on “What is Archaeology?” This explained
why we dig under the ground to nd artefacts and sites that help us learn about people’s
lives in the past.
The presentation discussed a range of different periods and places where archaeology
might be a useful way to investigate things. We felt this was particularly important to
avoid giving students the impression that historical archaeology was anything more
than a small part of a wider eld, and to emphasise the value and importance of ar-
chaeological research in prehistoric periods.
The overall experience from the students’ perspective was hopefully a useful and well-
rounded one, although this analysis is inevitably subjective. The muddy process they
had witnessed and had briey introduced to them was further explained within a wider
context of studying the past and particularly the distant past. For the Year 6 students the
value was multiplied, as the entire project was linked to their most recent studies and
placed it within an environment they were familiar with.
While the archaeological element of the project was highly satisfactory there were as-
pects of the education element that with hindsight I would have done differently. The
assembly and possibly some classroom based sessions on archaeology for the older
students might have been of greater value if carried out before rather than during the
excavation; this has proved more successful in subsequent projects. It might have been
possible to involve the students more fully in the excavation if time, tools and teachers
had allowed us to excavate some of the interesting lumps and bumps on one side of
the eld that appeared to be entrances to air raid shelters much closer to the surface,
and less likely to involve dangerously deep trenches. I believe that a greater degree of
involvement in the excavation, again for the older students, would have made a more
lasting impact and helped spark an interest that might be developed through informal
means, such as the Young Archaeologists’ Club. In the event two students expressed an
interest in nding out more about archaeology and we provided them with the appro-
priate website information to nd out more. Finally, since carrying out this excavation
project I have heard of some similar work carried out elsewhere in the country, as well
as plans for another project of this type in the future. Sadly I was unable to draw any
lessons or guidance from the former; hopefully I will be able to provide something of
use to the latter.
Conclusions
Archaeologists should encourage schools to gather the evidence and use it
to carry out curriculum work instead of just using a visit to an excavation
or monument as an addition to the study of a particular period (Corbishley
1986: 8).
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
65
Is the archaeology of Second World War schooling a cunning way to sneak archaeol-
ogy into the history curriculum? Should the massed ranks of archaeological educators
descend on schools everywhere and merrily hack chunks out of the playing elds and
playgrounds in search of air raid shelters? Perhaps, and perhaps not.
On the positive side, bringing archaeology into school grounds is an excellent way of
enthusing students and teachers about the potentials of archaeological studies of the
past. Furthermore excavating a reinforced concrete air raid shelter is more amenable
to student participation than, say, a Mesolithic site: a structure designed to withstand
explosions can survive violent trowelling or inept mattocking without complaint. With
active support from history teachers and head teachers, and most importantly the care-
taker and grounds staff, such projects can be enormously rewarding for all concerned.
Forward planning and archival research are obviously essential parts of this process at
the early stages, not least in providing a historical background that is vital if integration
into the curriculum is to be a central aim. The lasting result of such research should be
a resource that can be used and reused over time.
However as mentioned earlier care must be taken to ensure that students understand
the full breadth of archaeological research, temporally and geographically as well as
thematically; for example building surveys are a good starting point to explain that not
all archaeology is about digging. Another potential difculty with the type of project
described above is matching teachers’ enthusiasm and openness with the availability of
the resource. There are also innumerable logistical limitations but these apply in differ-
ent ways in almost any community archaeology project. The biggest problem to over-
come is how to develop students’ interests in archaeology beyond outreach work: until
archaeology has a rmer foothold in the school curriculum these individual projects
run the risk of isolation. But as long as we understand them to be aspects of a broader
campaign for archaeological education, there is no doubt that Second World War ar-
chaeology can become a useful tool amongst the techniques and approaches available
to community archaeologists.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Sarah Dhanjal and Don Henson for their generous advice in the prepa-
ration of this paper, and to the editors and referees for their comments. Thanks also to
the staff and students of Edgware School and to everyone who took part in and sup-
ported the excavation.
References
Board of Education. 1939. Circular 1467, 27th
April. London: HMSO.
Calder, A. 1969. The People’s War: Britain 1939-
1945. London: Cape.
Coad, J. 2005. Warfare and Defence: What’s Next?
Post-Medieval Archaeology 39(2),
224-232.
Corbishley, M. 1986. Archaeology, Monuments,
and Education, in Cracknell, S. and
Corbishley, M. (eds.) Presenting Ar-
chaeology to Young People. York:
CBA Research Report 64, 3-8.
66
Second World War Archaeology in Schools
Corbishley, M. 1999. The National Curriculum:
Help or Hindrance to the Introduction
of Archaeology in Schools? in Beavis,
J. and Hunt, A. (eds.) Communicating
Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow, 71-78.
DfES, 2006. Learning Outside the Classroom Mani-
festo. [http://publications.teacher-
net.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/LOtC.
pdf] [Accessed 19.1.08].
DfES, 2007. History at Key Stages 1 and 2. Unit 9:
What was it like for children in the Sec-
ond World War? [http://www.stand-
ards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/history/
his9/?view=get] [Accessed 19.1.08].
Dhanjal, S. 2005. Touching the Past? Papers from
the Institute of Archaeology 16: 35-49.
Edgware School Logbook. 1940. Entry 18th
November. Edgware: Edgware Junior
School.
Hendon Education Committee. 1941. Minutes of
Meeting 8th March. Barnet Archives.
Hendon Education Committee. 1946. Minutes
of Meeting 10th September. Barnet
Archives.
Henson, D. 1997. Archaeology in the English Na-
tional Curriculum. York: CBA.
Henson, D. 2000. Teaching the Past in the United
Kingdom’s Schools. Antiquity 74,
137-41.
Henson, D. 2004a. The Educational Framework in
the United Kingdom, in Henson, D.,
Stone, P. and Corbishley, M. (eds.) Ed-
ucation and the Historic Environment.
London: Routledge, 13-21.
Henson, D. 2004b. Archaeology in Schools, in
Henson, D., Stone, P. and Corbishley,
M. (eds.) Education and the Historic
Environment. London: Routledge,
23-32.
Hussey, S. 2003. The School Air-Raid Shelter: Re-
thinking Wartime Pedagogies. History
of Education Quarterly 43(4), 517-539.
Magorian, M. 1998. Goodnight Mister Tom.
London: Pufn.
Moshenska, G. 2007. Unearthing an Air-Raid Shel-
ter at Edgware Junior School. London
Archaeologist 11(9), 237-240.
National Curriculum. 2008. [www.nc.uk.net]
[Accessed 23.1.08].
O’Brien, T. 1955. Civil Defence. London: HMSO.
Pretty, K. 1983. Not Child’s Play: Excavation for
Schools, in Corbishley, M. (ed.) Ar-
chaeological Resources Handbook for
Teachers. York: CBA, 14-15.
Schoeld, J. (ed.). 2004. Modern Military Matters:
Studying and Managing the Twentieth
Century Defence Heritage in Britain: a
Discussion Document. York: CBA
Starmer, G. 1983. Industrial Archaeology for
Schools, in Corbishley, M. (ed.) Ar-
chaeological Resources Handbook for
Teachers. York: CBA, 9-11.
Westall, R. 1977. The Machine-Gunners. London:
Pufn.
