Linking 19th-century archaeological finds with 19th-century lives: A genealogical approach for Spitalfields
June 11, 2008 ArchaeologySince I joined the organisation in 1998, much of my work at the Museum of London Archaeology Service has been focussed on analysing and interpreting the vast quantities of 16th-19th century dated artefacts excavated as part of the redevelopment of the area between London’s Bishopsgate and Spitalfields market (just to the north of Liverpool Street station) during 1994-2005 (modern map).
Much of this material was found during the abandonment of backyard features of a dozen or so houses built during the late 17th/early 18th century. These backyard features, related either to the drainage of the kitchen, yard and guttering (soakaway pits) or the disposal of human and household waste (the privy) were often filled with both organic waste (cess, remains of meals) and rubbish (glass, pottery, pipes, hearth sweepings etc). Each individual feature was quickly filled though the dates when this occurred across these properties ranged between 1820-50.
I’ve used some archaeological jargon - in this context, a ‘feature’ is a hole in the ground that represents some human activity. ‘Assemblage’ is another term that has a specific meaning in archaeology - roughly speaking, it’s a group of artefacts found near each other.
These tightly dated finds assemblages, from properties on what was once Spital Square and Fort Street, Duke Street and Steward Street, London - a neighbourhood mostly demolished between 1920-50 - therefore required a different interpretive response and focus. By employing essentially genealogical approaches, I searched the surviving administrative records for these streets for the period (Land Tax assessments, commercial directories, Sun Life Insurance records, Sewer Rate books and census returns) and worked out the addresses of the properties studied. Once achieved, my attention shifted to finding out more about the people whom lived here at the time when these backyard features were abandoned.
This meshing of finds and documentary evidence - focussed on individual households - provided me with an intimate insight into the lives of many of Spitalfields forgotten residents.
Though this household archaeology approach, aided by using online resources such as the Old Bailey online (www.oldbaileyonline.org) and the The Times newspaper, captured much information, I am interested in finding out more about the following people whose possessions are now curated in our archive. I therefore welcome comments from any descendants of the families listed below! The names of the principal heads of household are given by address(along with the dates of occupation) though we often know the names of their children too.
- Joseph Graham, Ann Graham and Mark Graham of 24 Fort Street: 1811-25. Silk manufacturers. Joseph died in 1817/8.
- James Vernell and Elizabeth Ive Vernell of 25 Fort Street: 1813-24. James was a silk manufacturer, his brother John Vernell worked nearby on Steward Street.
- Thomas Walker of 29 Fort Street: 1831-4. Silk manufacturer.
- Barnabas Martin and Mary Martin of 29 Fort Street: 1841. Barnabas was a silk manufacturer.
- William Gilbert of 30 Fort Street: 1830-5. Silk manufacturer. William and his family were long-term residents of Fort Street whom frequently moved between different houses here.
- Judah Woolf and Rose Woolf of 31 Fort Street: 1871-9. Judah was a general dealer. Part of the Jewish community. London born.
- Charles Millingen and Sarah (neé Barnet) Millingen of 5 Spital Square: 1847-57. Charles was employed as a umbrella manufacturer and were Ashkenazi Jews. Charles was London born, Sarah from the Bay of Biscay. More information about this family appears on GenPals Cemetery Project www.genpals.com <http://www.genpals.com/>
- John Reid and Louisa Reid of 21 Spital Square: c1833-45. John was employed as a silk manufacturer. Scottish born.
- William White and Ann White of 17 Crispin Street: 1841. William was employed as a shoe maker.
I look forward to receiving your comments about these 19th-century Londoners.
Linda Mannix :
Date: September 23, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Greetings from Canada. I have just started some preliminary research on my grandmother who was born at 14 Duke Street in Spitalfields in 1890. Her name was May Hurlock. I gather that Duke Street no longer exists - I believe that it is now Fort Street. I would be very interested in any information that you would have regarding that location. My son is currently living in London and will visit that location to take pictures etc. Also, if you have any further information about her family I would be very interested in receiving it. Based on the 1890 Census records, her mother was Jane Hurlock - born in 1870 and her mother was Ann Oakes, born in 1852. THey all lived at 14 Duke Street at the time of the census. Thank you very much for any additional information you could provide me about this location and what life was like during this time period in this community.
Linda Mannix
Nigel Jeffries :
Date: October 14, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Dear Linda
Thanks for your response to my blog.
You are right about Duke Street no longer existing: it was renamed Fort Street and renumbered after the 1920s extension of Spitalfields market. It was once part of the Liberty of the Old Artillery Ground (a Liberty was an old administrative unit in London that existed up to the late 19th century), though only a small section of Fort/Duke Street now survives, south of Brushfield Street. As my memory recalls, little or none of the original housing survives here. 95% of Duke/Fort Street was demolished in the later 1940s and 50s, though ironically, the remaining portion of Spitalfields Georgian housing is now protected and part of a conservation area. They now sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds….
So the street that your grandmother once lived on marked the beginnings of what might be considered as the ‘old East End’. Duke/Fort Street was laid out in the 1680s, and by the 1800s, like much of the neighbourhood, had developed into a mixture of stable commercial and domestic residences, with most of the commercial premises occupied by those involved in the silk trade. Throughout the 1810s and certainly up to the 1840s, no.14 Duke Street - the house occupied by your grandmother - was occupied by Delamare and Son, individuals listed as silk manufacturers in the trade directories for this period (available at the Guildhall Library in the City of London: your son should be able to search these for the 1890s too if he wishes). Given there surname the Delemare’s probably represented old Huguenot stock.
Things were nevertheless rather different by the 1890s, though this period was slightly outside my research and im straying slighly outside my comfort zone here. Certainly the character of the area had changed, the silk industry had declined, and many properties in the Liberty had been converted into warehouse space, where empty, or simply had been demolished etc. Those that remained in domestic use had become rather overcramped, and one finds that houses that were once in single occupancy now had up to three to four families living in them. The housing stock for adjoining Steward and Fort Street, however, was characterised by quite large three to four storey properties and so this might not have been as unmanageable as one might think.
One should also beware of taking the blanket, often bleak, contemporary representations of the East End at face value when trying to get some idea of the life that your grandmother led during this period and the streets that she walked. Though times were undoubtedly tough for many occupants of the East End during this period, not everyone wore ragged clothes, was uneducated, and drank too much! This is particularly the case for reputation of Spitalfields, with the section around Commercial Road mired by the Ripper murders.
Im afraid that I don’t have any information about your particular family, but good luck on your research.
Best wishes Nigel Jeffries
jill :
Date: November 22, 2008 @ 12:19 am
my family lived on duke street in 1961 (i presume they lived there before this, but 1961 was the only census i could find them on)
they were
henry wilson born 1823
sarah wilson born 1831
william henry wilson born 1850.
there were 15 of them living in the same building comprising of 6 differnt family names. i was just wondering if this was usual in the area at the time, or if this was some kind of boarding house. anythink you could tell me would be great thanks
jill :
Date: November 22, 2008 @ 12:20 am
sorry i wrote they lived there 1961, i ment 1861