Inside Tallis: Reconstructing the Interiors of Tallis’s London Street Views

Abstract

This paper will examine how the physical reality behind Tallis’s illustrations can be illuminated to explore the commercial, domestic and social dimensions of Tallis’s London. It will explore the range of material culture available, and how this can be used to analyse interior space, in particular through English Heritage’s Architectural Study Collection. Two preliminary case studies will investigate the future potential for looking behind the façades of early Victorian London.

Keywords:

• London
• townhouse
• Tallis
• archaeology
• wallpaper
• historic interiors

I. Introduction

Tallis’s London Street Views offer a tantalizing insight into the vibrant commercial districts of London in the 1830s and 1840s. This paper seeks to explore the lost spaces behind Tallis’s façades to reveal a nuanced story of Londoners modifying and experiencing the built environment. Tallis provides us with a snapshot of London between 1838 and 1840. This was a locale poised between two worlds: on one side, the elegant eighteenth-century city associated with ideas of improvement and polite society, on the other side the grimy late nineteenth-century city blighted by industrialization from which the elite and middling classes sought to escape.¹ This division is also mirrored within the academic world, with scholars frequently focused on either the Georgian or high Victorian periods and with little work exploring the messy ground between them.² Tallis, therefore, provides a useful opportunity to investigate this transitional period, which encompassed new attitudes to urban planning, consumption and domestic life. This investigation will include analysis of the streetscape and consider ideas of orderliness and regulation. Is this orderliness disrupted in Tallis? What details of the physical environment does he choose to include and what details does he exclude? The interiors behind Tallis’s exteriors also capture London in this period of decisive change as the city transitioned into a global centre. It is vital, therefore, not just to look at the illustrations but to peer behind these façades. What was the experience of both shopping and domestic life in these properties and how were the two interrelated? We look through the windows of Tallis’s illustrations and we see only blank space staring back at us, but, by utilizing an archaeological approach, we can start to fill in these blanks and understand the hidden worlds beyond.

This paper investigates the potential of material culture to explore these interiors, in particular through English Heritage’s Architectural Study Collection (ASC), a collection of over 6000 eighteenth- and nineteenth-century fixtures and fittings from London townhouses. These include, cornices, doorcases, fireplaces and a significant wallpaper collection that can all be used to virtually reconstruct many of these now-demolished houses (Figure 1). Recent research utilizing the ASC has created a series of theoretically driven methodologies to explore the lost London spaces it represents.³ Within its current research framework, the collection is uniquely placed to explore the buildings and streetscapes depicted in Tallis’s pamphlets.

Figure 1. The Architectural Study Collection is currently stored at Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom, MK45 4HR (© English Heritage).

II. Archaeological approaches

Previous archaeological work on Victorian and Georgian London has been a study in contradictions.⁴ Although in recent years, and particularly since the 1990s, there have been extensive developer-funded excavations, much of the evidence from this work has not been interpreted and analysed in the light of wider scholarly understandings of the modern city.⁵ A notable exception is the work by Owens and Jeffries that utilizes the below-ground evidence to explore middling and lower-class neighbourhoods in the metropolis.⁶ This project, in contrast, focuses on the evidence of standing buildings rather than from excavated sites. It should be noted that the use of physical evidence does not prescribe social activities or simply allow you to ‘read’ a building. Recent criticisms of the use of material evidence and its limitations as a source have ignored the wealth of theoretical work conducted on buildings from a wide range of periods and the sophisticated and varied methods with which physical and documentary evidence are combined.⁷ One of the more prevalent modes of analysis within buildings archaeology involves the idea of structuration, which draws on the work of Bourdieu, Giddens and de Certeau, and highlights how the physical environment helps to structure as well as reflect social space.⁸ This is a theoretical position that is in line with the work of a number of historical geographers and historians.⁹ It allows for the analysis of the possibilities and constraints of the building and associated material culture, and how this relates to social experience. Recent work has foregrounded the biographical approach to buildings, which emphasizes the life history of material culture and how its meanings are transformed over time.¹⁰ This is also linked to concerns within historical archaeology more generally with exploring the small-scale stories that lie behind grand social narratives of consumption, domestic privacy and industrialization.¹¹ These small-scale narratives can complicate and add nuance to the bigger questions, telling new stories of ‘the conflicting materialities of improvement’.¹²

These approaches enable archaeologists to explore how buildings functioned and were experienced, while connecting interior spaces with the occupants who interacted with them. Within a contextual framework, exploring the building interior prompts a multi-scale approach from an object, to room, to building, to street, to neighbourhood. By charting changes over time and noting which areas are singled out for development and investment and those left alone or ignored, detailed micro-histories inform our understanding of larger social processes associated with modernity. This approach maps neatly onto how the occupants would have lived their day-to-day lives, moving from their homes, to their shops to the wider neighbourhood.

The following two case studies are from central London and feature differing strands of material culture. The case studies therefore take different approaches to how the material is analysed and have been chosen to demonstrate the potential of archaeological approaches. Both examples are depicted in Tallis’s streetscapes. The first case study is from 119 New Bond Street and the second is from 34 Haymarket. These case studies are not intended to be exhaustive accounts of each address, but rather offer a flavour of how the ASC and the approaches advocated by the authors can be utilized for exploring Tallis’s Street Views.

III. 119 New Bond Street

119 New Bond Street is depicted in Part 9 of Tallis’s Street Views.¹³ In the late 1830s, the building is illustrated in relatively high detail compared to neighbouring buildings. No. 119 does feature the shop name and details of the products sold, with the building marked as ‘SZARKA & Co. Wholesale and Retail FUR Manufacturers’ (Figure 2). A separate advert for the shop can also be found in the covers of the pamphlet (Figure 3). Tallis illustrates 119 New Bond Street as a three-bay, four-storey building. The ground floor features a double-fronted shop front with a residential entrance to the right. The shop front features two large 16-pane arched windows either side of what appears to be a two-paned glass door surmounted by an arched fanlight. The residential door to the right appears to be a marginally smaller panelled door with a matching fanlight. An irregular shop front with a door to the shop space and a separate door to the homes above was not an uncommon feature of 1830s and 1840s shop front design.¹⁴ The notable and possibly recognizable difference to those entering the building was that the shop door was often glazed whereas most often a solid door led to domestic spaces.¹⁵ The depiction in Tallis suggests this arrangement was most likely in place at No. 119. The three floors above the shop are depicted in a relatively typical fashion. The windows of each floor decrease in height, with the three first-floor windows the tallest. The first-floor windows are mirrored in the smaller windows of the second floor, creating a symmetrical and classical appearance. The third floor appears to feature two smaller dormer windows in the roof space. No. 119 is illustrated in a section of the streetscape with 12 buildings, which are mostly comparable in width and height. Eight of the 12 buildings feature shop names and product information. In this part of the streetscape, No. 119 is the only shop front to feature arched fanlights, which may have increased its prominence to the passer-by.

Figure 2. New Bond Street illustrated by Tallis (Courtesy, The Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana).

Figure 3. 119 New Bond Street Szarka advertisement published by Tallis (Courtesy, The Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana).

In 1976, 119 New Bond Street was allocated Grade II listed status. The Historic England listing entry states that although the building was originally constructed in the middle of the eighteenth century it was remodelled at some point in the first half of the nineteenth century.¹⁶ It is possible that this remodelling coincided with Szarka’s residency or occurred shortly afterwards. There are, however, some architectural details missing from the Tallis drawings, including the cornices above the first-floor windows and the pediments above the second-floor windows. The listing also notes that the shop front features twentieth-century additions and the current shop front does not include the separate entrance to the right of the original façade, suggesting a reconfiguration of interior space.

A number of sources survive that tell the story of 119 New Bond Street and its inhabitants. To illustrate the point of this short article, the following discussion of residents and businesses will focus on the period Tallis represents and those present shortly before and after. The documentary sources include census data, trade directories, plans from the Conduit Mead Estate and the Tallis pamphlet. English Heritage’s ASC includes 21 wallpaper samples from the building dating from the late eighteenth century to the 1920s.¹⁷ Once situated within a robust research framework, wallpaper offers the potential to explore room use, taste and experience of built space.¹⁸ Wallpaper is an especially useful source for the analysis of nineteenth-century interiors. In the eighteenth century, the modification of architectural fixtures and fittings in the form of cornices, fireplaces and doorcases was a common phenomenon. This allows changing investment and use of space within the property to be analysed, particularly in regard to which areas of the house the occupiers chose to update and which areas they chose to leave alone. In the nineteenth century, however, fixtures and fittings were far less extensively altered and instead mediums such as wallpaper denote variations. Laminates of wallpaper (layers of different wallpapers that are separated during the conservation process) have even more potential because they illustrate how these themes evolved or remained static over time. Combining these sources offers an impression of the lived experience and the relation between domestic and commercial space.

There are four key phases that represent the use of 119 New Bond Street during the period of Tallis. Phase one begins in 1831 with R. Bancks and Son, who are described as Opticians in the Robinson’s trade directories.¹⁹ The sole traders at this address, Bancks opticians are noted as supplying scientific equipment to Charles Darwin on the voyage of the HMS Beagle in 1831, suggesting a proprietor with a respectable reputation. Five imitation marble wallpapers probably dating from this period were recovered from the hallway or entrance area.²⁰ The first nineteenth-century paper was pasted to an earlier eighteenth-century one. This eighteenth-century paper could have been used solely as a lining paper or for decorative purposes prior to the faux marbles and is a pretty block-printed floral design in black, grey and white amidst strap-work of the same colour (Figure 4).²¹ The similar style of the subsequent faux marble papers indicates that this was the shopkeeper’s style of choice throughout the period covered by Tallis. This imitation of the classical style suggests the shop intended to create the image of civility and possibly a sense of grandeur. The continued use of marble papers implies that this fashion remained a popular choice of shop interior.

Figure 4. Marbled wallpaper and eighteenth-century block printed paper (© English Heritage ASC 8808 2008.2 and 2008.5).

In 1836, the change of proprietor to F. Szarka marks the beginning of phase two.²² It is Szarka’s business that is featured in the first edition of Tallis and this shop stays at the address until 1843. By 1844, Henry Hicks, described by Robinson’s trade directory as a saddler, has taken up a short residency of four years and the shop is then empty for at least one year in 1849.²³ Over the course of these two decades, the relatively regular replacement of similar papers in the hallway (on average every five years) suggests the need to refresh the space while retaining a specific style. The regularity of refurbishment suggests a large volume of traffic passing through the area, probably made up of customers. The proprietors working from this commercial space wished to maintain a high standard of fashionable décor that engaged with the experience of the consumer or visitor.

Phase four of the shop’s residency begins sometime around 1850 when Isaac Willis opens his music shop, and he remains at the address until 1862.²⁴ As previously discussed, revealing who lived at 119 New Bond Street during the period of Tallis is a challenge. Census records indicate that by phase four, Isaac Willis, his daughter and a servant were in residence.²⁵ The decision to remain in residence above your shop was a conscious one for middle-class retailers in the middle of the nineteenth century. While many proprietors were opting to live elsewhere, the Willis family followed more traditional conventions and lived above their premises. Isaac’s daughter is recorded as being a music teacher and possibly also taught from the shop. A laminate featuring a series of papers employed during this period and beyond survives in the ASC.²⁶ All the papers feature bright colours, including strong blue and red examples (Figure 5). Most examples include machine- and block-printing techniques creating textured and floral papers. It is most likely that these papers were chosen for the private areas above the shop. The choice of wallpapers suggests the Willises and later residents took care to create a cheerful and vibrant living space and invested in the home.

Figure 5. Fragments of wallpaper and laminates removed from 119 New Bond Street (© English Heritage ASC 8808 2008.7).

Figure 6. Exterior of 34 Haymarket Street, 1906 (Courtesy, London Metropolitan Archives, City of London: Collage 132437 cat ref SC/PHL/01/482/84/607).

IV. 34 Haymarket

The second case study is No. 34 Haymarket, close to Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square. The building dates to the middle of the eighteenth century and is a four-storey structure with a modillion stone cornice at third-floor level (Figure 6).²⁷ The first shop on the premises was occupied by Peter Fribourg, who was a snuffman and tobacconist, and this was later taken over by G. A. Treyer in 1780, who continued in the same trade, with the business operating under the name of Fribourg and Treyer until 1920.²⁸ Treyer had no connection with Fribourg and seems to have been simply appropriating the already established reputation of the shop for his own purposes. This was something Fribourg took exception to and even went as far as taking out an advert in the Public Advertiser of 1784 to inform the public that the two businesses were completely unconnected.²⁹ As well as the remarkable continuity in commercial activity on the premises, the building also boasts a rare survival of a historic shop interior (Figure 7). This includes an Adam-style wooden partition, dividing the front shop from the back, as well as wooden counters and shelves dating to the late eighteenth century.³⁰ These surviving features provide insights into the division of space within the shop both in the Georgian period and at the time of Tallis, in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Figure 7. Interior of Fribourg and Treyer’s shop in Haymarket, 1939 (Courtesy, London Metropolitan Archives, City of London: Collage 132439 SC/PHL/01/482/B8948).

The evidence for No. 34 Haymarket (both physical and documentary) raises a number of important themes. The first relates to the exterior of the building. Classical architecture, in particular its qualities of balance and symmetry, has been interpreted as a crucial component of improved urban spaces.³¹ It helped to smooth out the landscapes of streets and squares and evoke links with a classical world that was ‘rational … imperial, rich and civilized’.³² Tallis offers a complex interaction with this physical environment as it accurately captures some details but omits others. The depiction of No. 34 is accurate to some degree. The details included comprise the prominently bowed windows, the fanlights above the doors and the exterior cornice. However, as with No. 119 New Bond Street, other decorative details are omitted. The building has less architectural embellishment than No. 119 New Bond Street, although the elements the building does have (flat-arched lintels) are omitted from Tallis.

Grant has argued that Tallis displays a city undergoing rapid transformation, with the illustrations documenting this changing landscape through the inclusion of fences and voids indicating houses that were being demolished and rebuilt.³³ This is certainly true, but in other areas Tallis reduces the diversity present in the built environment. By excluding individual details from buildings, the Street Views highlight the uniformity of classical architecture and downplay the variety that can exist. As has been argued elsewhere, the diversity present in this classical landscape is important as it can disrupt the apparent meanings of order and regulation ascribed to it by modern scholars.³⁴ The criteria by which architectural details are included or excluded are not consistently applied in Tallis, with depictions of buildings on New Bond Street, for example, containing much less elaboration than those on Haymarket. These missing details bear important evidence for our understanding of these environments and the physical reality of how the streetscapes were experienced by contemporaries. This is also important evidence in analysing the status of individual buildings and the use of commercial and domestic space. This can be seen in the pedimented windows of No. 119 New Bond Street. It was typically first-floor windows that were singled out for exterior embellishment, as internally the first-floor front room was the main reception room.³⁵ There was therefore a relationship between exterior and interior space. However, at No. 119, it was the second storey that was singled out for decorative treatment. This may point to the first-floor also being occupied by a business and the domestic accommodation only starting on the second floor, or it may point to an unusual articulation of domestic space. The analysis of features such as these will reward further study, as the exterior evidence is certainly not the whole story and there was often a complex interaction of neighbourhood, interior and exterior elaboration, social status of the occupant, as well as their age and gender.³⁶

In the analysis of Tallis, there is a need to look not just at the illustrations but at what lies beyond them and to explore the interiors of these buildings. This will begin with the investigation of the shop space. The nineteenth century saw a radical change in shopping practices. The number of shops proliferated and the interior space available expanded as individual shops incorporated neighbouring plots into their businesses.³⁷ This was accompanied by new forms of retail space, including large multi-storey emporia that dramatically increased the interior square footage, as well as the construction of fashionable arcades.³⁸ However, despite these transformations, there was still continuity with previous practices and No. 34 is testament to this. The internal fixtures and fittings of No. 34 at the time of Tallis were Georgian and designed for the performance of Georgian shopping practices. However, this layout was still in use in the shop throughout the nineteenth century and was still considered appropriate by both the proprietors and their customers. The appropriateness of this interior in the nineteenth century may well have been influenced by the goods being sold. Specialist trades adapted the interiors of their establishments to better facilitate the sale of their particular stock and this also influenced the forms of shops in this period.³⁹ The introduction of large warehouses and emporia was frequently associated with drapers. Older buildings were amalgamated and new elegant ones constructed to house these expanding businesses, which became general instead of specialist drapers and stocked a broader range of goods.⁴⁰ It could be that the small-scale nature of the tobacco and snuff business, coupled with an ability to pay close attention to the elite customer base, allowed No. 34 to continue to thrive. The reasons for the continuity demonstrated at No. 34 would be fruitful to explore in a wider study. Is it a result of location, trade or the status of the client base?

While the survival of Georgian fixtures and fittings at No. 34 does not prescribe how the shop was used, it does suggest the possibilities and limitations of the space and how both customers and staff performed their roles. The interior of No. 34 is dominated by the counters and display cases that run parallel along the full length of the fore shop, with only a narrow corridor for customers to stand. In the Georgian period, the focus of the shopkeeper/customer interaction was the counter and browsing largely consisted of goods being presented on the counter for customers to inspect.⁴¹ The interior of the Georgian shop did encourage other forms of browsing besides those oriented on the counter, enticing customers to look at the goods displayed around the shop, with display cases such as those at No. 34 facilitating this.⁴² In the Victorian period, this form of browsing became more widespread, and it became increasingly common for goods to be arranged openly around the shop (together with marked prices) for customers to inspect.⁴³ However, as had been argued elsewhere, the fixtures and fittings present in the typical Georgian shop would lead to a very restricted space that limited a relaxed browsing experience, particularly if more than one customer was present.⁴⁴

The nature of the goods on sale at No. 34 also emphasizes this tension. A breakdown of the stock in 1858 indicates that foreign cigars and snuff made up two of the largest categories of goods, but close behind were ‘fancy goods’, the accoutrements of cigar and snuff consumption that would have been prominently exhibited in the display cases, encouraging customers to move up and down the length of the shop and browse. The continued presence of the Adams screen also argues for the persistence of separate space at the back of the shop for more exclusive clients. This is given further weight when one considers the type of clients Fribourg and Treyer had. In Tallis, the businesses’ patronage by the royal family is prominently displayed and this is mirrored in a trade bill from 1853, which proclaims them as ‘tobacconists to his Majesty’ as well as ‘purveyors of foreign snuff to … the Dukes of Cumberland, Cambridge and Gloucester and Duchess of Kent’.⁴⁵ The account books for the period covered by Tallis also demonstrate the customer base included substantial proportions of the aristocracy, as well as those of high rank in the military.⁴⁶ The most illustrious clients would not have set foot in the shop, but the back room would have remained a convenient venue for entertaining high-status customers of lesser rank.

No. 34 highlights the fact that despite the new forms of shopping that were emerging during the nineteenth century, older forms of retail experience still persisted in the capital. Many of the shops on New Bond Street and Haymarket that Tallis represents in the middle of the nineteenth century are housed in narrow eighteenth-century buildings. While the interiors of these buildings could have been adapted, the limitations on space meant that newer forms of browsing would have been awkwardly adapted to these spaces. Many of these shops were aiming at the high-status market, and in just part of New Bond Street (the part covered by Section 9 of Tallis) there were seven businesses with royal customers. There is little correlation between the size of properties and those who chose to advertise with Tallis, with businesses in narrow buildings just as likely to advertise as those in larger ones. The use of an old-fashioned interior in No. 34 certainly does not seem to have hurt the business of Fribourg and Treyer given their client base. The combination of evidence from both Tallis and the material record has emphasized the need for further research into how the older forms of retail space interacted with the new emporia and bazaars. When was it acceptable for older forms to persist? The detailed geography of the consumer experience is not often explored, particularly in relation to the nineteenth century. It would be useful to consider a range of different types of goods and investigate how they relate to the buildings in which they were sold. What were the opportunities and limitations for display and customer interaction? Where we have continuity in shop form from the eighteenth century, does this also relate to the status of the neighbourhood or the social position of the customers?

It is also important to consider the use of domestic space. Here we see a distinct difference between No. 34 Haymarket and No. 119 New Bond Street, with both of these properties going against the general trajectory of the interaction of commercial and domestic space. For much of the eighteenth century, the majority of shopkeepers and merchants, even wealthy members of the urban gentry, lived above the shop. This changed in the nineteenth century with the retreat of the middle classes to the suburbs.⁴⁷ However, within this broad trajectory, little scholarly research has been conducted on the nuances of this process. The work of Lesley Hoskins, who utilizes inventories to investigate the complexity of Victorian living, stands out in this regard.⁴⁸ In this roundtable, Hoskins continues this exploration with consideration of the blurred lines between domestic and commercial space in the case of a professional middle-class dentist. This complexity is further demonstrated in the two case studies presented here. At the time of Tallis, in the middle of the nineteenth century, No. 34 Haymarket was not inhabited by the senior partners of Fribourg and Treyer, but by a variety of tenants.⁴⁹ This is to be expected given the time period and the status of the partners, but this division of commercial and domestic space had occurred much earlier, with G. A. Treyer having a separate domestic property in Kilburn in 1796 before later moving to Brighton.⁵⁰ His successors continued this trend, with G. A. Treyer Evans having a house at 21 Kensington Gore.⁵¹ In contrast, Isaac Willis lived at 119 New Bond Street in 1850, despite the increasing tendency of the middle classes to move to the suburbs and the undesirable nature of living above the shop. This highlights how much work there is still to be done on the interaction of commercial and domestic space in this period. Why did individuals make different choices and how does it relate to the social status they wished to project? This choice also has a profound impact on the articulation of domestic space, including the use and meaning of particular rooms and how privacy is articulated in the home.

V. Conclusion

This paper has explored the potential of an archaeological approach to illuminate both the streets that Tallis depicts and their hidden interiors. It has highlighted the productive interaction of both material culture and archive evidence and how this can be used to consider the use of space and perceptions of the streetscape. The case studies in this paper highlight a number of important themes for future research. The first explores how Tallis’s illustrations relate to the physical reality of the streetscape. Tallis does include the decorative details of specific buildings but the inclusion of these details is not applied consistently and many are simply omitted. The Tallis illustrations, therefore, have a complex relationship with the city they are depicting. At first glance, Tallis appears to be regulating and ordering the street, yet there is still considerable variation within the predominantly classical landscape that is illustrated. There is significant contrast in the width and height of properties, as well as the degree of architectural ornamentation that is included, all of which disrupt the regularity of the streetscape. There is an equally complex relationship between the exteriors of these buildings and how they were perceived by contemporaries in terms of status and wealth. The investigation of how the individual buildings fit into the wider urban landscape is an important element of this. The consideration of neighbourhoods allows this complexity to be analysed, building up an understanding of the communities that lived there and how they employed material culture.

The archaeological approaches discussed here also allow for internal space to be analysed. There was not the opportunity to conduct archaeological surveys of the interiors and previous work in York has demonstrated that, despite widespread changes, there is frequently surviving evidence in these commercial buildings that provides insights into the use of space.⁵² Although the ground floors of many of these buildings are almost entirely modern due to contemporary shop development, the upper floors frequently contain surviving fixtures and fittings including cornices, fireplaces and doorcases. The evidence for both wallpaper and for fixtures and fittings allows researchers to track both the level of decorative investment accorded to particular rooms and which rooms were targeted for change over the course of a building’s life. This also applies to the relationship between consumer and domestic space. When would it be considered acceptable for proprietors to still live above their businesses in the nineteenth century despite members of the middling classes often choosing to live elsewhere? The consumer space of the shop behind Tallis’s façades also bears further investigation, particularly how and when the new forms of consumption were prioritized and when older forms of retailing were still in use. This short article has highlighted the potential of archaeological approaches and archaeological questions regarding Tallis’s illustrations in the Street Views and aimed to explore the themes that future research could address.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Charlotte Newman
English Heritage
[email protected]
Matthew Jenkins
University of York

Notes

1. Mark Girouard, The English Town (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 101–44, 189–236.

2. Sarah Tallow, The Archaeology of Improvement 1750–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 90–91. Examples of notable exceptions include Tallow, Archaeology of Improvement, and Rosemary Sweet, The English Town 1680–1840: Government, Society and Culture (Harlow: Longman, 1999).

3. Charlotte Newman, ‘A Mansion for the Mad: An Archaeology of Brooke House, Hackney’, Post-Medieval Archaeology, 49 (2015), 131–55; Matthew Jenkins and Charlotte J. Newman, ‘London in pieces: a biography of a lost London streetscape’, in InHabit, ed. by Antony Buxton (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2017).

4. Nigel Jeffries, Alastair Owens, Dan Hicks, Rupert Featherby and Karen Wehner, ‘Rematerializing Metropolitan Histories? People, Places and Things in Modern London’, in Crossing Paths or Sharing Tracks: Future Directions in the Archaeological Study of Post–1550 Britain and Ireland ed. by Audrey Horning and Marilyn Palmer (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2009), pp. 323–50.

5. Jeffries et al., ‘Rematerializing Metropolitan Histories?’, p. 328.

6. See, for example, Alastair Owens and Nigel Jeffries, ‘People and Things on the Move: Domestic Material Culture, Poverty and Mobility in Victorian London’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 20.4 (December 2016), 804–27.

7. Tim Meldrum, Domestic Service and Gender 1660–1750: Life and Work in the London Household (Harlow: Longman, 2000), pp. 77–78; for examples of the range of buildings archaeology see Pamela C. Graves, ‘Social Space in the English Medieval Parish Church’, Economy and Society, 18.3 (August 1989), 297–322; Roberta Gilchrist, Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious Women (London: Routledge, 1997); Kate Giles and Melanie Giles, ‘The Writing on the Wall: The Concealed Communities of the East Yorkshire Horselads’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 11.4 (December 2007), 336–57; Nathaniel W. Alcock, People at Home: Living in a Warwickshire Village, 1500–1800 (Chichester: Phillimore, 1993); Paul Graves-Brown and John Schofield, ‘The Filth and the Fury: 6 Denmark Street (London) and the Sex Pistols’, Antiquity 85.330 (November 2011), 1385–401.

8. For discussions of the development of the discipline see Kate Giles, ‘Buildings archaeology’, in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, ed. by Claire Smith (New York: Springer, 2007), pp. 1033–41; Dan Hicks and Audrey Horning, ‘Historical Archaeology and Buildings’, in The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, ed. by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 273–92. For discussion of structuration theory see John C. Barrett, Fragments From Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Kate Giles, An Archaeology of Social Identity: Guildhalls in York c.1350–1630. British Archaeological Reports British Series 315 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2000).

9. John Stobart, Andrew Hann and Victoria Morgan, Spaces of Consumption: Leisure and Shopping in the English Town, c.1680–1830 (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 21.

10. Harold Mytum, ‘Ways of Writing in Post-medieval and Historical Archaeology: Introducing Biography’, Post-Medieval Archaeology, 44.2 (2010), 237–54; Gavin Lucas, ‘Historical Archaeology and Time’, in The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, pp. 34–47.

11. Dan Hicks, ‘From ‘Questions that Count’ to Stories that ‘Matter’ in Historical Archaeology’, Antiquity 78.302 (December 2004), 934–39.

12. Hicks, ‘From “Questions that Count”’, p. 939.

13. Jackson, London Street Views, pp. 54–55.

14. Kathryn A. Morrison, English Shops and Shopping (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003).

15. Morrison, English Shops.

16. Historic England, National Heritage List for England ‘119, New Bond Street W1’, <https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1266791> [accessed 15 December 2016].

17. Architectural Study Collection (Wrest Park, Bedfordshire), accession number 88082208.1–8.

18. See publications by the Wallpaper History Society for numerous examples.

19. Robinson Trade Directory 1831, accessed Westminster Archives.

20. Richard Keynes, ed., Charles Darwin’s Zoology Notes and Specimen Lists from H.M.S. Beagle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) p. xxv. English Heritage (EH) accession 88082008.1–4.

21. EH accession 88082008.2 and 88082008.5.

22. Robinson Directory 1836, accessed Westminster Archive.

23. Robinson Directory 1844, accessed Westminster Archive.

24. Kelly’s Directory, accessed Westminster Archive.

25. England and Wales Census 1851 and 1861.

26. EH accession 88082008.7.

27. George H. Gater and Frederick R. Hiorns, eds, Survey of London: Volume 20, St Martin-in the-Fields, Part III: Trafalgar Square and Neighbourhood (London: London Country Council, 1940), pp. 95–100.

28. George Evans, The Old Snuff House of Fribourg and Treyer at the Sign of the Rasp & Crown No 34. Haymarket, London S.W. (London: Donald Macbeth, Forgotten Book, 2015).

29. Anon, Public Advertiser, 11 November 1784, p. 1.

30. Historic England, National Heritage List for England ‘No 34, Haymarket SW1’ < https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1357092> [accessed 14 December 2016].

31. Peter Borsay, The English Urban Renaissance: Culture and Society in the Provincial Town, 1660–1770 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).

32. Miles Ogborn, Spaces of Modernity: London’s Geographies, 1680–1780 (New York: Guilford Press, 1998), p. 76; Tarlow, Archaeology of Improvement, p. 97.

33. Elizabeth Grant, ‘John Tallis’s London Street Views’, The London Journal, 37.3 (November 2012), 234–51 (pp. 236–37).

34. Jenkins and Newman, ‘London in pieces’; Matthew Jenkins, ‘The View from the Street: the Landscape of Polite Shopping in Georgian York’, Urban History (forthcoming).

35. Dan Cruickshank and Neil Burton, Life in the Georgian City (London: Viking, 1990), p. 146.

36. See the analysis of Tilney Street, Mayfair (Jenkins and Newman, ‘London in pieces’).

37. Jon Stobart, Spend, Spend, Spend! A History of Shopping (Stroud: The History Press, 2008), p. 102.

38. Morrison, English Shops, pp. 92–108, 125–43.

39. Morrison, English Shops, p. 67.

40. Stobart, Spend, Spend, Spend, p. 105.

41. Stobart et al., Spaces of Consumption, p. 126.

42. Claire Walsh, ‘Shop Design and the Display of Goods in Eighteenth-Century London’, Journal of Design History, 8.3 (September 1995), 157–76 (pp. 161–64).

43. Kelley Graham, Gone to the Shops: Shopping in Victorian England (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2008), p. 6.

44. Jenkins, ‘The View from the Street’; Matthew Jenkins, ‘The View from the Street: Housing and Shopping in York During The Long Eighteenth Century’ (PhD diss., University of York, 2013).

45. WA FT/0391/58.

46. WA FT/0391/41; Evans, The Old Snuff House, pp. 28–32.

47. Richard Newman, The Historical Archaeology of Britain c.1540–1900 (Phoenix Mill: Sutton, 2001), p. 92.

48. Lesley Hoskins, ‘Stories of Work and Home in the Mid-Nineteenth Century’, Home Cultures, 8.2 (2011), 151–69.

49. Kelly’s Directory, accessed Westminster Archive.

50. LMA CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/407/660578; CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/440/806225.

51. LMA CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/510/1049444.

52. Jenkins, ‘Housing and Shopping in York’.