Evidence of Migration in the Urban Environment

Reading migration in Spitalfields

Migration changes more than the population of an area. New residents need homes, workplaces and places of worship. Their activities can leave physical traces which survive after the people who created them have moved away.

Spitalfields in East London provides examples of how an urban environment can preserve this history. Its houses and religious buildings help us connect changes in population with changes in the use of space. However, buildings are evidence to interpret, not a complete record of everyone who lived there.

Silk working left its mark on houses

Spitalfields was a first place of settlement for many Huguenot refugees. In eighteenth-century Spitalfields, wealthy master silk merchants lived in elegant houses with ornately carved porches, tall doors and shutters. These features help reveal the wealth associated with the silk trade.

The houses also contained working spaces. Wide attic windows provided light for journeyman weavers working at their looms. A house could therefore combine an impressive home with space for producing silk: domestic life and employment were not necessarily separated into different buildings.

Spindles identifying weavers’ houses are another trace of this activity. Taken together, these features connect the built environment with the occupations of people in the Huguenot community. The wide attic windows are particularly useful because their practical purpose helps explain their design.

The diagram separates two kinds of evidence: decorative features associated with wealthy merchants, and working features associated with silk weaving. Neither feature alone proves the identity of every resident; the interpretation becomes stronger when architectural evidence is combined with knowledge of the building’s history.

Religious buildings preserve changing uses

Places of worship can reveal both the presence of a community and changes over time. Some Huguenot chapels in Spitalfields became Jewish synagogues. Here, an existing building served a different religious community rather than being replaced altogether.

Brick Lane Mosque is another example of a building used by several migrant groups for worship at different times. Its present function belongs to one stage of a longer history. This illustrates an important distinction: a building may survive while the people using it, and its religious purpose, change.

Christ Church, designed by Nicholas Hawksmoor, also has connections with Huguenot life. Many Huguenots were baptised, married and buried there. Their history therefore cannot be traced only through buildings labelled as Huguenot chapels: records of their use of other institutions matter too.

These examples show why an investigation should ask both what a building was constructed for and how it was subsequently used.

Not every trace survives

Migration also affected spaces beyond buildings. Huguenot weavers planted mulberry trees in the area that became the playground of Morpeth School in Bethnal Green. Silkworms eat mulberry leaves, linking the trees with silk production and the livelihoods of the weavers.

The trees were removed in 1963 because of disease and storm damage. Their disappearance shows why the present-day environment is an incomplete record. A visit today would not reveal those trees, but historical records can help reconstruct their significance.

Turning observations into historical explanations

When investigating a feature, first describe it precisely, then establish its date and use, and finally explain its connection with migration. For example, wide attic windows become evidence of migrant economic activity when they are connected with the documented use of those rooms by silk weavers.

Compare different kinds of evidence. A building’s fabric can show how space was arranged; written records can identify occupants or congregations; earlier photographs can document features that have disappeared. Agreement between these sources strengthens an interpretation.

Survival is uneven. An elegant merchant’s house may preserve the experience of wealthy residents more clearly than that of poorer workers. Similarly, a former place of worship demonstrates a community’s presence, but does not by itself tell us how numerous its members were. Spitalfields is best understood as a layered environment: surviving, altered and lost features each contribute part of its migration history.

Houses and work

• Spitalfields: Huguenot silk merchants and weavers left architectural traces.
• Carved porches, tall doors and shutters → elegant merchant homes.
• Wide attic windows → light for journeyman weavers at looms.
• Spindles → identify weavers’ houses.

Worship and changing communities

• Some Huguenot chapels became Jewish synagogues: surviving buildings could serve new communities.
• Brick Lane Mosque has been used by several migrant groups for worship over time.
• Christ Church: many Huguenots were baptised, married and buried there.

Lost evidence

• Huguenot-planted mulberry trees at what became Morpeth School linked the area with silk production.
• Removed in 1963 because of disease and storm damage.

Interpreting the environment

Feature → established date/use → connection with migration.

Combine buildings with records and earlier photographs. Present use is not necessarily original use; surviving features do not represent every resident or prove population size.