Archaeology has given a great deal to theatre history in recent years. We have the entire footprint of the Rose, and fragments from two other theatres, plus evidence about bear-baiting houses and other Elizabethan structures. They quite literally make a more tangible contribution to our knowledge than anything that has survived on paper. What they can tell us is also rather more reliable than anything else, such as the De Witt drawing. But many problems remain, not least in creating the most plausible interpretations of the signs that the archaeologists have given us. The best of what has been found is now available in a book (Bowsher and Miller) which gives us precise measurements and photographs of the multitude of pieces from the Rose and the Globe sites. They also make a beginning on what is likely to prove a complex and in many aspects unrewarding analysis of what they can tell us. That beginning displays its own flaws, and should warn us about how fragmentary so much of the evidence still is, and how much remains to be done with it. Identifying at least some of what remains to be done is the aim of this article.View full textDownload full textKeywordsRose, Globe, theatre, archaeology, stage, stairway, Euclid, potteryRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450918.2011.625441
展开▼
