1

The discovery of the remains of the Rose playhouse in early1989 aroused as much excitement in the world of theatrehistory as in the world of archaeology. Henslowe’s Rosesuddenly became famous, but it was followed the next year bythe discovery of a smaller part of Shakespeare’s Globe itself.These excavations provided a miraculously large body of ‘hard’evidence that gave scholars of Shakespeare and the early moderntheatre new and far more tangible things to consider than thetired guesswork based on the scraps of paper and limitedgraphical evidence that had until then survived as the chiefform of record for the early modern period.

Much has been written about these playhouses since theirarchaeological discovery and close cooperation with a variety ofdisciplines has resolved many issues – issues largely concernedwith the nature of the buildings and their design. Butarchaeology strives for a greater understanding of humanactivity within those buildings. Playhouses and theatres have adefinable function and we have a fairly clear picture of whatactivities were undertaken within them. The programme ofresearch whose findings this volume presents has thereforeallowed, for the first time, exhaustive commentary on both thebuildings and the people within.

The importance of these playhouses extends across theworld, to wherever Shakespeare, and early modern literature, istaught, understood and revered. For much of the 20th centurythe teaching of English Literature was concerned withShakespeare as poetry rather than as drama, and the study ofplayhouses was carried out mainly within small academiccircles. By the 1980s there was a revived interest in the physicalfabric of the buildings for which the drama was written. Withinwider English studies, this was largely stimulated by the ‘newhistoricism’ of scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt (1980; 1988).Today, the national curriculum for schools in Britain stresses theimportance of Shakespeare as dramatist and thus the importancegiven to an understanding of the original physical environmentwherein ‘Shakespearean’ drama was first played and performed(http://curriculum.qca.org.uk; see also Hildy 1990b). Suchperformative context is also a viable concern for literarycriticism.

These literary and educational concerns coincided,serendipitously, with archaeological exploration.

1.1 Location and circumstances of

fieldwork

This project is principally concerned with sites that producedevidence for two late 16th- to early 17th-century Thames-sideplayhouses, identified as the Rose and the Globe. The site ofthe Rose (Scheduled Ancient Monument, county no.LO20851) is currently occupied by an office development,Rose Court, with extensive remains preserved in its basement(NGR 532270 180420). Further remains of the playhouse maylie unexcavated immediately to the east of this development,

1

Introduction

2

Introduction

on the site of the Corporation of London Engineers’ Depot.The site of the Globe (Scheduled Ancient Monument, countyno. LO12606) was redeveloped in 1997. Part of the site iscovered by Anchor Terrace, an 1830s listed building (LB UID471334), part is occupied by a newly built residentialdevelopment, and other areas, including the remains identifiedas relating to the Globe, have been preserved in situ beneathroadways, a car-parking area and a commemorative pavement(NGR 532350 180350). Both sites are situated in the Banksidearea of the London Borough of Southwark (Fig 1) within an‘archaeological priority zone’ as designated by the LondonBorough of Southwark.

For the purposes of this publication, the specific area ofinterest was defined as the form, construction, use, demolition,history and development of the Rose and the Globe playhouses. A more general area of interest was defined as thesites of the Rose and the Globe in relation to the late medievaland post-medieval development of the central part of theBankside area, from Paris Garden in the west to Bankend in the east.

The full publication of the results of the excavations,together with the archive, is seen as being of primaryimportance on account of the exceptionally high levels ofpublic and academic interest in the playhouses. The bulk ofevidence on which discussions are based comes from the Rose,simply because it was a larger excavation that produced agreater quantity of evidence.

A number of preliminary reports were published by theoriginal excavators, as well as discussions on the significance of the findings (Blatherwick and Gurr 1992; Bowsher 1998a;Barber et al 2001; Barber 2002; Bowsher 2007b; 2007c).Unpublished archives of smaller sites for which there is nospecific ‘report’ (below, ‘Smaller investigations’; 1.2) are stored in the London Archaeological Archive and Research

Centre (below, 1.3), filed by site code. The findings of thecurrent research programme, published in this volume,supersede all previous reports and articles. There is a largebody of published and unpublished documentary researchrelating to the playhouses and to Bankside. This has beenreviewed and anything that might contribute to thispublication, including primary documentary sources, has beenidentified. The endeavour throughout has been to consult theoriginal source material, rather than to rely on secondaryreporting.

Within this publication reference is predominantly to thearchive from the main sites of the excavations. These are sitesSBH88 and PR441 at the Rose investigations and sites ACT89,ACT91 and GLB96 at the Globe investigations. The letterprefixes used to identify these sites are listed in Table 1.

The Rose

The site of the Rose playhouse lies at 2–10 Southwark BridgeRoad, SE1 (Fig 2). The excavations at sites A and B (below) led to the site of the Rose being designated as a ScheduledAncient Monument (county no. LO20851) in February 1992,

Fig 1 Location of the sites of the Rose and the Globe playhouses in relation to modern and medieval London (scale 1:20,000)

Site Site Playhouse Addressprefix code

A SBH88 Rose 2–10 Southwark Bridge Road, SE1B PR441 Rose 2–10 Southwark Bridge Road, SE1C ACT89 Globe Anchor Terrace car park, Park Street, SE1D ACT91 Globe 1–15 Anchor Terrace, Southwark Bridge Road, SE1E GLB96 Globe 1–15 Anchor Terrace, Southwark Bridge Road, SE1

Table 1 Principal sites described in this report

3

Location and circumstances of fieldwork

under the terms of the Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalAreas Act, 1979. The scheduled area (Fig 4) contains the remainsthought to be associated with the Rose playhouse, ‘Cholmley’shouse’ and archaeological remains relating to later phases ofthe site’s history and development.

Site A (SBH88)

AREA A

The original excavations followed the demolition ofSouthbridge House, a 1957 office block (Fig 2). The excavation, carried out by the Museum of London’s formerDepartment of Greater London Archaeology (DGLA, nowsuperseded by Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA)),began on 19 December 1988. It was due to last for two months but was extended until 15 May 1989, when it wasintended that the remains should be reburied in advance of

redevelopment. It was supervised by Julian Bowsher, laterjoined by Simon Blatherwick. The initial excavation was funded by Imry Merchant Developers PLC and then by English Heritage. The site is now a Scheduled AncientMonument (county no. LO20851).

AREA B

A smaller area of excavation was located at the northern end ofthe Rose site (Fig 2), but falls outside the scope of this report.There were traces of medieval activity with a ditch containing13th-century pottery and a large animal bone assemblage,dominated, interestingly, by rabbit bones, probably kitchen orindustrial waste. Later 17th- and 18th-century walls and floorsattest to the increasing development in the area.

Site B (PR441)

Concern for the buried remains resulted in a new foundationplan for the proposed redevelopment of the site. Eleven smalltrenches, to the north and south of the DGLA excavations (Fig2), were then excavated between June 1989 and February 1990in those areas likely to be damaged by the redesigned pilinglayout (Eccles 1990, 211). This work was funded by EnglishHeritage and undertaken by their own Central Excavation Unit(CEU; now the Central Archaeology Service, CAS), supervisedby John Hinchliffe and Dave Batchelor.

Smaller investigations

Two smaller investigations have subsequently been undertakenin the area of the Rose (below).

SBESWT91

An archaeological watching brief was undertaken during workson the north-east stairwell of Southwark bridge (Fig 4). Thiswas monitored by Simon Blatherwick for the DGLA in July1991. However, this location is a little farther east than the LittleRose estate upon which the playhouse was built. Furthermore,it did not reveal any layers or features earlier than the 18thcentury (unpublished DGLA archive).

PKU01

More important was a small trench excavated in September andOctober 2001 to the east of the SBH88 excavations, within acouncil depot adjacent to Southwark bridge (Fig 2). This workwas commissioned by English Heritage on behalf of the RoseTheatre Trust and undertaken by Giffords Engineering and Pre-Construct Archaeology (PCA), supervised by Simon Blatherwickand Chris Pickard. This excavation revealed the probable edge ofthe Little Rose estate property boundary ditch as well as later18th- and 19th-century remains (Blatherwick and Pickard 2004).

Lenox reconstruction

A project to reconstruct the Rose playhouse in Lenox,Massachusetts, was begun by Shakespeare and Company in

Fig 2 The Rose playhouse site showing site A, areas A and B, and site B,

trenches 1–11 (scale 1:1000)

4

Introduction

2000, but is yet to be realised. Shakespeare and Companycommissioned Parameta Architects to produce a research andreconstruction design, in consultation with MOLA. Thisdocument (Greenfield and McCurdy 2002), although completedbefore the present publication programme and therefore unableto take full account of its analyses, has provided many usefulinsights.

The Globe

The Globe site lies at 1–15 Anchor Terrace and Anchor Terracecar park, Park Street, SE1 (Fig 3). Several phases ofarchaeological work on this site have been carried out by DGLAand MOLA (below, sites C–E). As a result of the 1989evaluation, when remains thought to be associated with theGlobe playhouse were uncovered and recorded, part of the sitewas designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (county no.LO12606) on 13 December 1989. The Anchor Terrace building(NGR 532307 180367) is a Grade II Listed Building that sitsastride part of the scheduled area. The scheduled area containsthe remains thought to be associated with the Globe playhouseplus archaeological remains relating to later phases of the site’shistory and development.

Site C (ACT89)

An evaluation was carried out on the site of Anchor Terrace carpark between 6 July and 23 October 1989, supervised by SimonMcCudden and Jim Hunter (McCudden 1989; Eccles 1990, 208;Blatherwick and Gurr 1992).

Site D (ACT91)

Three trial pits were excavated in the basement of 1–15 AnchorTerrace between 7 October and 23 October 1991, supervised bySimon Blatherwick (Blatherwick 1991; Greenwood andThompson 1992, 420).

ACH95

A watching brief was held on contractors’ excavation of 14engineering test pits on the site of Anchor Terrace car park,outside the Scheduled Ancient Monument, in October 1995,supervised by Kevin Wooldridge (Greenwood and Maloney1996, 18).

Site E (GLB96)

An excavation was carried out on the site of Anchor Terrace carpark, outside the Scheduled Ancient Monument, between 3February and 21 February 1997 in advance of building work,supervised by Bruno Barber. A watching brief under the samesite code, supervised by Bruno Barber, Simon Blatherwick andJohn Taylor, was held on the entire area of Anchor Terrace carpark during the periods 11–19 December 1996 and 13 January–4 June 1997. Its purpose was to monitor groundworks and the

installation of the permanent preservation backfill regime(Barber et al 2001; Barber 2002).

Post-excavation

Post-excavation work on both projects started shortly after theoriginal excavations, although little work was done on findsmaterial. Owing to general interest, a number of articles andconference reports were written for the Rose, and a ‘popularbook’ was later produced (Bowsher 1998a). Although there werea number of generalisations in this book, the basic stratigraphicdivision into building phases was mostly correct. Thesubsequent more detailed reanalysis has resulted in only twochanges: the ingressus is definitely from phase 1 not phase 2; andit is probable that the timber drain was constructed in phase 2.In March 2001 an archaeological post-excavation assessment andupdated project design for both playhouse sites, funded byEnglish Heritage, was compiled by Bruno Barber.

1.2 Nearby archaeological excavations

The Bankside area of Southwark is famous historically for beingan area of entertainment with inns, animal-baiting, brothels and

Fig 3 The Globe playhouse site showing sites C, D and E (scale 1:1000)

5

Nearby archaeological excavations

playhouses. There is a large amount of documentary evidencerelating to the sites, which will be considered in this report, and thearea has been subject to a number of archaeological investigations(Fig 4), referred to by their Museum of London site codes.

BAK99

27 Bankside/Riverside House, SE1 (NGR 532560 180480) (Fig 4). Work on this site was undertaken in 1999 and in thetwo following years. There were two chalk-walled buildings of late 13th-century date. A brick building with polygonalwalls may be the Hope playhouse of 1613. A brick-builtfurnace and the south wall of the glasshouse known to exist atthe site in the late 17th century were found, along with debriscontaining evidence of glass manufacturing with fragments ofcrucible pots and bottles. The glasshouse was replaced in 1748by an iron works. Several brick buildings, including a flueassociated with metalworking, a brick-lined pit and a drain,could be related to this activity. Associated deposits containedcopper-alloy objects and slag. Other buildings on the siteincluded a pottery kiln from the known Bear Garden pothouse,which made tin-glazed pottery or delftware from 1702 to c 1710. Later brick buildings may be the remains of warehousesrelated to wharves on Bankside (Mackinder in prep).

EWH08

Empire Warehouse, Bear Gardens, SE1 (NGR 532250 180460) (Fig 4). Although the southern part of the Hope playhouse waslikely to have been located within this site, deep modernfoundations appear to have removed any traces of it. There werewaterlaid deposits across the whole site and in certain areasthere were concentrations of animal bones, including theremains of ten large dogs, horses and several bear bones. All areindicative of bear-baiting taking place on Bankside. They areprobably from either the Hope theatre (1614–56), which was adual-purpose arena, or the later Davies Bear Gardens(1660/62–82). The only other features were a pit filled withbuilding debris, a possible timber drain and a brick tank thatprobably belongs to the 18th-century iron foundry(unpublished MOLA archive).

BAN95

Benbow House, Bear Gardens, SE1 (NGR 532233 180510) (Fig4). Large medieval chalk footings for a building or a riversiderevetment were revealed. Above was a series of foundation wallsfor five buildings dating from the medieval period to the 19thcentury. In the south of the site a series of three timber piles

Fig 4 Location of nearby archaeological excavations in relation to the playhouse sites, with scheduled areas shown (scale 1:2000)

6

Introduction

beneath robbed-out wall foundations that date to the 16th–17thcenturies may represent the corner of a large building, probablyBear Garden 3 (below, NGW00). Overlying these foundationswas a large amount of 17th-century glasshouse waste that mayhave derived from the Bear Garden glasshouse, established in1671; these glass deposits were succeeded by a number of 18th-and 19th-century brick foundation walls (Mackinder andBlatherwick 2000).

BNS98

The Anchor public house, 1–2 Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532440180400) (Fig 4). The earliest deposits exposed were dump layersdating to the late 16th or early 17th century. Brick structuresand buildings were constructed from the 17th century, withbuilding work dating from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries(unpublished MOLA archive).

BKS81

5–15 Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532360 180450) (Fig 4). Excavationsrevealed a waterlaid sequence, probably part of a large creekrunning inland from the river. The lowest level comprised athick peat deposit. A dump of mid 14th-century potterysuggested the possibility of an unknown kiln on Banksideproducing Surrey white wares. The site had been built uprelatively late, the sequence being overlain by the fragmentaryremains of 16th- and 17th-century buildings (unpublishedDGLA archive).

5BS87

Farther east under the same address as previous (NGR 532400180450) (Fig 4). Three trenches here revealed flooded andreclaimed marshland and drainage channels of medieval date.Chalk foundation walls of the 14th century and later brick wallsrelating to buildings along Bankside were recorded. A timberrevetment incorporating reused planking from a medievalclinker-built boat was located 10m from the modern bank.Farther to the north chalk rubble had been dumped to form thefoundations for the 14th-century stone river wall (unpublishedDGLA archive).

37BS87

37–46 Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532180 180510). This is now thesite of the reconstructed Globe playhouse. Excavations in 1987found the tops of at least three parallel east–west revetments of16th-century date. These were constructed of reused timber,including parts of Tudor wheelbarrows, and are probably partof fish tanks or ponds (unpublished DGLA archive).

NGW00

New Globe Walk, SE1 (NGR 532220 180480) (Fig 4). Alluviumoverlain by organic material filled a former channel of the

Thames. The channel fills were cut by a pond whose siltscontained bones from mastiff-size dogs used in the bear-baitingand from horses that had apparently been fed to them. Thisdated to after 1580, and may have been associated with BearGarden 3, which was active from c 1540 to 1613, and was rebuiltc 1583. A stable or kennel, probably associated with a later phaseof bear-baiting at the Hope (Bear Garden 4), overlay the pond.In the 17th century, the site was occupied by several phases ofglassworks and potteries. A dump of ‘biscuit’ wasters, trivets(spacers), saggars and square shelf tiles from the pottery dated to1630–80. The remains of later post-medieval structures probablybelonged to later industrial activity on the site, which continuedin various forms into the 19th century (Mackinder in prep).

PMK02

135 Park Street/4–8 Emerson Street, SE1 (NGR 532210 180380)(Fig 4). A sequence of Late Bronze Age peat, dated 1310–1040BC (2970±40 BP), was revealed. The peat appears to have beentruncated by fluvial action, probably during the 15th to 17thcenturies (unpublished AOC Archaeology archive).

PSE02

Union Works, 60 Park Street, SE1 (NGR 532230 180440) (Fig4). Work in 2002, investigation in August 2004 and recent workin 2008 has revealed the gallery walls and yard of the 1662–82Davies Bear Garden (Bear Garden 5) and evidence of a laterglassworks on the site. During 2004 and 2008 archaeologicalevaluation revealed the northern and southern inner walls ofthe bear-baiting arena. The walls were some 21m apart andformed the inner yard of the arena. The latest investigation hasrevealed further evidence of the inner and outer gallery walls,both foundations and pier bases and later industrial activity onthe site. Early interpretation of the site (see also PRU05 below)would suggest the bays of Bear Garden 5 were c 4.0m in depthand that, including the galleries, the bear gardens would havemeasured c 29.5m–30m across (Saxby 2004 and pers comm forongoing (November 2008) work).

PRU05

58 Park Street, SE1 (NGR 532242 180423) (Fig 4). A 17th-century brick wall provisionally interpreted as being associatedwith the bear garden was found within test pit 1. The height ofthis wall was revealed at 2.31m OD, the same height as thesouthern wall of the arena found at PSE02 (see above). Here,the northern inner wall and the gravel arena surface were alsofound. A clay tobacco pipe bowl, found within the silts adjacentto the wall, dates to 1660–80, contemporary with the BearGarden (Saxby 2006).

SIP88

Skin Market Place, Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532170 180450) (Fig4). An excavation in 1988–9 located a previously unknown

7

Organisation of this report

island of high sand that yielded Neolithic pottery and flints andwas sealed by flood deposits and early medieval ditches. Thesewere covered in turn by further flood clays of 14th- to 15th-century date. There was also evidence of the timber-revetted17th-century fish ponds of the King’s Pike Garden (unpublishedDGLA archive).

TFB99

Thames Foreshore, Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532270 180530).Alluvial clays and sands were recorded below the foreshorelayers. Various timber structures and isolated posts and beamsassociated with riverfront revetments, as well as 19th- and 20th-century shuttering, were observed. Two timber drains, probablyof 19th-century date, were also found. Below the foreshore thetruncated remains of a late medieval revetment were revealedover a distance of at least 6.8m; other timbers farther east mayhave been a continuation of the same. A small section of latemedieval barge bed was found consisting of a section of clinkerboat planking with chalk packing behind (unpublished PCAarchive).

1.3 Organisation of this report

Following the introduction, Chapter 2 provides threebackground studies: Bankside is examined first in natural andsecondly in historical terms, with an emphasis on the medievaland post-medieval documentary history of the core area. In thethird section a brief outline of the known history of theatre inLondon and beyond is offered, concentrating on what wasknown of the construction and development of the Londonplayhouses before the new information provided by theexcavations discussed in this volume. Chapters 3 and 4 providefully integrated chronological narratives for the Rose and theGlobe excavations, starting with documentary andarchaeological evidence for pre-playhouse land use. Theevidence of the construction, alterations and rebuilding of thetwo playhouses is supported by documentary and archaeologicaldata including artefactual material and environmentalindicators. An account of the closure and demolition of theplayhouses is then followed by brief summaries of the post-playhouse developments at both sites.

Chapter 5 examines every aspect of the buildings frombuilders, materials and layout to sections on individualstructural components of the playhouses. This physical evidenceis then allied to architectural and constructional experience inorder to provide a paper reconstruction of each playhouse.Much of this chapter was contributed by Jonathan Greenfield,who also worked out the Rose reconstruction plans. Asummary compares the archaeological evidence with thedocumentary sources and offers a new synopsis of our currentknowledge. Chapter 6 examines what evidence there is foractivity within the buildings, using documentary sources and

analysis of the artefactual remains. Subjects relevant to currenttheatre research such as function, finance and performance arelooked at with the evidence for costume and consumption bythose using the buildings. A summary attempts to look at therelationship between management, actors and audience within awider social environment.

The conclusion (Chapter 7) summarises the significance ofthe findings in the light of current academic debate and suggestsareas where further research or excavation may be desirable.The first part of Chapter 8 provides a reproduction of therelevant historical documentation, after which specialistappendices describe methodologies and present discussions tosupport arguments advanced in the earlier parts of the book,followed by catalogues and tables of material. It should benoted that although there is a vast bibliography on earlyplayhouses, much of which has been read by the authors of thepresent volume, only relevant pieces have been included in thepresent bibliography. Initial published reactions to theexcavations, largely but not exclusively by theatre historians,were equally numerous but, again, have not all been referred tohere.

The chronological narratives utilise an archaeologicalstructure defined for the moderately tight time span in whichthese playhouses flourished. A simple framework of periods,straddling both sites, was imposed:

· period 1 refers to the natural environment. The directevidence for this period was generally limited to deepsondages, although some of the alluvial clays encounteredturned out to be redeposited. This period is mainly discussedin Chapter 2.1, with only a little detail in Chapters 3.1 and 4.1;

· period 2 defines pre-playhouse developments on both sites.This period is largely confined to the medieval and earlierpost-medieval eras (Chapter 3.2 and 4.2). Much of theevidence for earlier archaeology comes from the larger Globe,just a small amount coming from the Rose site. Nevertheless,the evidence is generally limited. Some features of thelandscape, however, were undoubtedly still present during thelifetime of the playhouses;

· period 3 covers the known lifetime of both playhousesalthough there is a time overlap. The Rose covers the period1587–1606 (Chapter 3.3) and the Globe 1599–c 1650 (Chapter4.3). There are subdivisions for both buildings, however,reflecting two major phases of construction and a third phaseof closure, decay and demolition;

· period 4 is a broad category that largely falls outside the scopeof this volume, covering more than 300 years of post-playhouse development on both sites (Chapters 3.4 and 4.4).

Documentary sources are complemented where possible byarchaeological evidence. The periods examined in greatest detailare those directly following the demolition of the playhouses inorder to determine their immediate fate.

Though these periods refer to both sites, numbered landuses within them are specific to each. Thus at the Rose siteperiod 2 consists largely of Open Area 2, Structure 1 and

8

Introduction

Building 1 (‘Cholmley’s house’). Features of Open Area 2 andBuilding 1 continued to exist during the lifetime of theplayhouse, but it has been more useful to include descriptionand discussion of certain topographical features, such asboundary ditches, under the heading of Building 2 (the Roseplayhouse), which forms period 3. Open Area 3, the immediatesealing of the demolished playhouse remains, is the only landuse from period 4 discussed in detail, although mention is madeof the succeeding Buildings 3–5.

For the Globe site, period 2 includes Open Areas 2–3 andStructures 1–3. Period 3 includes Building 1 (the Globeplayhouse), Open Areas 4–5 and Structure 2. Period 4 includesvarious post-playhouse activities and comprises Open Areas 6–9and Buildings 2–6.

The site archives that form the basis for this report arepublicly accessible in the archive of the Museum of London andmay be consulted by prior arrangement at the LondonArchaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC),Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N17ED. The evidence presented in this publication can be relatedback to the physical and research archives through reference tothe appropriate site codes and individual archaeological contextnumbers. Indexes relate artefacts and ecofacts to these contexts,with the more important individual items provenanced throughcatalogue or accession numbers (below, 1.4).

1.4 Graphical and textual conventions

used in this report

In order for the reader to be able to locate the provenance ofarchaeological finds or strata a series of prefix codes has beenassigned to the major playhouse sites. In this report the five sitesare referred to by a prefix letter as listed in Table 1. Two basicunits are also referred to in the text: the context number and(occasionally) the group number. The context number is aunique number given to each archaeological event on the site,such as a layer, cut, fill, wall and so on. During analysis thecontexts are finally aggregated into groups representing morecomplex features on the basis of interpretation followingstandard MOLA practice.

Numbered archaeological contexts are noted within squarebrackets and prefixed by the site code, for example: A[100],representing context 100 from site A (SBH88). There isoccasional reference, particularly within the specialist reports, tothe numbered archaeological groups, as for example: group A1,representing group 1 from site A. The land-use units aredescribed as Buildings (B), Open Areas (OA) and Structures (S);there are separate numerical series for the Rose and for theGlobe.

Some categories of find have been given sequential numberswithin the research archive. Each catalogue covers materialdrawn from all the sites excavated and there is therefore no needfor a site-letter prefix. To indicate clearly to which catalogue

reference is being made, a prefix denoting the category appearsinside angled brackets with the artefact number. For example:

<CP1> refers to clay tobacco pipe no. 1;<G1> refers to glass object no. 1;<P1> refers to pottery vessel no. 1;<S1> refers to accessioned small find (covering a variety ofmaterials) no. 1;<ST1> refers to item of structural timber no. 1.

For each entry, the catalogue number with appropriate letterprefix is given (in angled brackets), then a brief identifier ofobject type and the figure number where appropriate; this isfollowed by the accessioned find number (in angled brackets) ifthe object has been assigned one, context number (in squarebrackets), period of context from which the object wasrecovered, and land use. The following abbreviations are used incatalogue entries: L (length); W (width); Th (thickness); Diam(diameter); H (height).

Where uncatalogued small finds are referred to, the originalaccession number (in angled brackets) is given along with thesite-letter prefix, thus: A<100>, representing accessioned find<100> from site A. Environmental sample numbers, wherenecessary, are shown in curly brackets, thus: A{100}.

This publication employs standard Museum of Londonreference codes for ceramics; these codes were developed by the MOL for recording purposes. A fabric number system isused to record building materials (tile and brick); these numbersrelate to detailed fabric descriptions. Pottery is recorded usingcodes (alphabetic or a combination of alphabetic and numeric)for fabrics, forms and decoration. Expansions of pottery codesare given at the first mention in a text section. Detaileddescriptions of the building material fabrics and complete listsof the pottery codes, their expansions and date ranges areavailable from the LAARC as part of the research archive andare also posted on the LAARC and MOLA pages of the MOLwebsite: www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk

Some measurements cited from documents are in pre-metric imperial units: 12 inches (in) equal 1 foot (ft); 3ft equal 1yard; 1ft equals 0.305m. Other common measurements of theperiod include the pole, also known as a rod or a perch, whichat this time was 16ft 6in (5.03m). Sums of money quoted in thetext are as cited in £, s and d, where 12 pence (d) made oneshilling (s) and 20 shillings (or 240d) a pound (£), or in marks,where one mark equals 13s 4d and three marks equals £2, sincemodern equivalents would be misleading. Dyer (1989, xv)provides the following reminder on which to base anapproximation to current values: ‘a skilled building workerearned 2d per day in 1250, 4d per day in 1400 and 6d in 1500’.

Dates are expressed throughout with the year beginning on1 January rather than on 25 March as was the custom in Britainuntil 1754. County names in the text refer to historic counties.

The playhouse known as The Theatre, built in Shoreditch in1576, is capitalised in order to avoid confusion with theatregenerally.

References to Henslowe’s Diary are from the latest edition(Foakes 2002, a revision of the 1961 edition by Foakes andRickert), although the earlier editions by Greg (1904; 1907;

1908) have been studied. The Diary (DC, MS VII) and otherdocuments have also been examined in the original at DulwichCollege and elsewhere.

The graphical conventions used in the plans in this reportare shown in Fig 5. Scales of reproduction are given in thefigure captions as appropriate.

9

Graphical and textual conventions used in this report

Fig 5 Graphical conventions used in this report