The discovery of the remains of the Rose playhouse in early

1 1989 aroused as much excitement in the world of theatre

history as in the world of archaeology. Henslowe’s Rose
suddenly became famous, but it was followed the next year by
the discovery of a smaller part of Shakespeare’s Globe itself.
Introduction These excavations provided a miraculously large body of ‘hard’
evidence that gave scholars of Shakespeare and the early modern
theatre new and far more tangible things to consider than the
tired guesswork based on the scraps of paper and limited
graphical evidence that had until then survived as the chief
form of record for the early modern period.
Much has been written about these playhouses since their
archaeological discovery and close cooperation with a variety of
disciplines has resolved many issues – issues largely concerned
with the nature of the buildings and their design. But
archaeology strives for a greater understanding of human
activity within those buildings. Playhouses and theatres have a
definable function and we have a fairly clear picture of what
activities were undertaken within them. The programme of
research whose findings this volume presents has therefore
allowed, for the first time, exhaustive commentary on both the
buildings and the people within.
The importance of these playhouses extends across the
world, to wherever Shakespeare, and early modern literature, is
taught, understood and revered. For much of the 20th century
the teaching of English Literature was concerned with
Shakespeare as poetry rather than as drama, and the study of
playhouses was carried out mainly within small academic
circles. By the 1980s there was a revived interest in the physical
fabric of the buildings for which the drama was written. Within
wider English studies, this was largely stimulated by the ‘new
historicism’ of scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt (1980; 1988).
Today, the national curriculum for schools in Britain stresses the
importance of Shakespeare as dramatist and thus the importance
given to an understanding of the original physical environment
wherein ‘Shakespearean’ drama was first played and performed
(http://curriculum.qca.org.uk; see also Hildy 1990b). Such
performative context is also a viable concern for literary
criticism.
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 produced

evidence for two late 16th- to early 17th-century Thames-side
playhouses, identified as the Rose and the Globe. The site of
the 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 may
lie unexcavated immediately to the east of this development,

1
Introduction
on the site of the Corporation of London Engineers’ Depot.
The site of the Globe (Scheduled Ancient Monument, county
no. LO12606) was redeveloped in 1997. Part of the site is
covered by Anchor Terrace, an 1830s listed building (LB UID
471334), part is occupied by a newly built residential
development, and other areas, including the remains identified
as relating to the Globe, have been preserved in situ beneath
roadways, a car-parking area and a commemorative pavement
(NGR 532350 180350). Both sites are situated in the Bankside
area of the London Borough of Southwark (Fig 1) within an
‘archaeological priority zone’ as designated by the London
Borough of Southwark.
For the purposes of this publication, the specific area of
interest 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 the
sites of the Rose and the Globe in relation to the late medieval
and post-medieval development of the central part of the
Bankside 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 primary
importance on account of the exceptionally high levels of
public and academic interest in the playhouses. The bulk of
evidence on which discussions are based comes from the Rose,
simply because it was a larger excavation that produced a
greater quantity of evidence.
A number of preliminary reports were published by the
original 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 no
specific ‘report’ (below, ‘Smaller investigations’; 1.2) are
stored in the London Archaeological Archive and Research
Fig 1 Location of the sites of the Rose and the Globe playhouses in relation to modern and medieval London (scale 1:20,000)
2
Centre (below, 1.3), filed by site code. The findings of the
current research programme, published in this volume,
supersede all previous reports and articles. There is a large
body of published and unpublished documentary research
relating to the playhouses and to Bankside. This has been
reviewed and anything that might contribute to this
publication, including primary documentary sources, has been
identified. The endeavour throughout has been to consult the
original source material, rather than to rely on secondary
reporting.
Within this publication reference is predominantly to the
archive from the main sites of the excavations. These are sites
SBH88 and PR441 at the Rose investigations and sites ACT89,
ACT91 and GLB96 at the Globe investigations. The letter
prefixes used to identify these sites are listed in Table 1.
The Rose
The site of the Rose playhouse lies at 2–10 Southwark Bridge
Road, SE1 (Fig 2). The excavations at sites A and B (below)
led to the site of the Rose being designated as a Scheduled
Ancient Monument (county no. LO20851) in February 1992,
Table 1 Principal sites described in this report
Site Site Playhouse Address
prefix code
A SBH88 Rose 2–10 Southwark Bridge Road, SE1
B PR441 Rose 2–10 Southwark Bridge Road, SE1
C ACT89 Globe Anchor Terrace car park, Park Street, SE1
D ACT91 Globe 1–15 Anchor Terrace, Southwark Bridge Road, SE1
E GLB96 Globe 1–15 Anchor Terrace, Southwark Bridge Road, SE1

under the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Areas Act, 1979. The scheduled area (Fig 4) contains the remains
thought to be associated with the Rose playhouse, ‘Cholmley’s
house’ and archaeological remains relating to later phases of
the site’s history and development.
Site A (SBH88)
AREA A
The original excavations followed the demolition of
Southbridge House, a 1957 office block (Fig 2). The
excavation, carried out by the Museum of London’s former
Department of Greater London Archaeology (DGLA, now
superseded 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 was
intended that the remains should be reburied in advance of
Fig 2 The Rose playhouse site showing site A, areas A and B, and site B,
trenches 1–11 (scale 1:1000)
Location and circumstances of fieldwork
redevelopment. It was supervised by Julian Bowsher, later
joined by Simon Blatherwick. The initial excavation was
funded by Imry Merchant Developers PLC and then by
English Heritage. The site is now a Scheduled Ancient
Monument (county no. LO20851).
AREA B
A smaller area of excavation was located at the northern end of
the Rose site (Fig 2), but falls outside the scope of this report.
There were traces of medieval activity with a ditch containing
13th-century pottery and a large animal bone assemblage,
dominated, interestingly, by rabbit bones, probably kitchen or
industrial waste. Later 17th- and 18th-century walls and floors
attest to the increasing development in the area.
Site B (PR441)
Concern for the buried remains resulted in a new foundation
plan for the proposed redevelopment of the site. Eleven small
trenches, to the north and south of the DGLA excavations (Fig
2), were then excavated between June 1989 and February 1990
in those areas likely to be damaged by the redesigned piling
layout (Eccles 1990, 211). This work was funded by English
Heritage and undertaken by their own Central Excavation Unit
(CEU; now the Central Archaeology Service, CAS), supervised
by John Hinchliffe and Dave Batchelor.
Smaller investigations
Two smaller investigations have subsequently been undertaken
in the area of the Rose (below).
SBESWT91
An archaeological watching brief was undertaken during works
on the north-east stairwell of Southwark bridge (Fig 4). This
was monitored by Simon Blatherwick for the DGLA in July
1991. However, this location is a little farther east than the Little
Rose estate upon which the playhouse was built. Furthermore,
it did not reveal any layers or features earlier than the 18th
century (unpublished DGLA archive).
PKU01
More important was a small trench excavated in September and
October 2001 to the east of the SBH88 excavations, within a
council depot adjacent to Southwark bridge (Fig 2). This work
was commissioned by English Heritage on behalf of the Rose
Theatre Trust and undertaken by Giffords Engineering and Pre-
Construct Archaeology (PCA), supervised by Simon Blatherwick
and Chris Pickard. This excavation revealed the probable edge of
the Little Rose estate property boundary ditch as well as later
18th- 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
3
Introduction

2000, but is yet to be realised. Shakespeare and Company

commissioned Parameta Architects to produce a research and
reconstruction design, in consultation with MOLA. This
document (Greenfield and McCurdy 2002), although completed
before the present publication programme and therefore unable
to take full account of its analyses, has provided many useful
insights.

The Globe

The Globe site lies at 1–15 Anchor Terrace and Anchor Terrace
car park, Park Street, SE1 (Fig 3). Several phases of
archaeological work on this site have been carried out by DGLA
and MOLA (below, sites C–E). As a result of the 1989
evaluation, when remains thought to be associated with the
Globe playhouse were uncovered and recorded, part of the site
was 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 sits
astride part of the scheduled area. The scheduled area contains
the remains thought to be associated with the Globe playhouse
plus archaeological remains relating to later phases of the site’s
history and development.

Site C (ACT89)

An evaluation was carried out on the site of Anchor Terrace car

park between 6 July and 23 October 1989, supervised by Simon Fig 3 The Globe playhouse site showing sites C, D and E (scale 1:1000)
McCudden and Jim Hunter (McCudden 1989; Eccles 1990, 208;
Blatherwick and Gurr 1992).
installation of the permanent preservation backfill regime
(Barber et al 2001; Barber 2002).
Site D (ACT91)

Three trial pits were excavated in the basement of 1–15 Anchor

Terrace between 7 October and 23 October 1991, supervised by
Simon Blatherwick (Blatherwick 1991; Greenwood and
Thompson 1992, 420).
ACH95
A watching brief was held on contractors’ excavation of 14
engineering test pits on the site of Anchor Terrace car park,
outside the Scheduled Ancient Monument, in October 1995,
supervised by Kevin Wooldridge (Greenwood and Maloney
1996, 18).
Site E (GLB96)
An excavation was carried out on the site of Anchor Terrace car
park, outside the Scheduled Ancient Monument, between 3
February and 21 February 1997 in advance of building work,
supervised by Bruno Barber. A watching brief under the same
site code, supervised by Bruno Barber, Simon Blatherwick and
John Taylor, was held on the entire area of Anchor Terrace car
park during the periods 11–19 December 1996 and 13 January–
4 June 1997. Its purpose was to monitor groundworks and the
Post-excavation
Post-excavation work on both projects started shortly after the
original excavations, although little work was done on finds
material. Owing to general interest, a number of articles and
conference reports were written for the Rose, and a ‘popular
book’ was later produced (Bowsher 1998a). Although there were
a number of generalisations in this book, the basic stratigraphic
division into building phases was mostly correct. The
subsequent more detailed reanalysis has resulted in only two
changes: the ingressus is definitely from phase 1 not phase 2; and
it is probable that the timber drain was constructed in phase 2.
In March 2001 an archaeological post-excavation assessment and
updated project design for both playhouse sites, funded by
English Heritage, was compiled by Bruno Barber.
1.2 Nearby archaeological excavations
The Bankside area of Southwark is famous historically for being
an area of entertainment with inns, animal-baiting, brothels and

4

Fig 4 Location of nearby archaeological excavations in relation to the playhouse sites, with scheduled areas shown (scale 1:2000)
playhouses. There is a large amount of documentary evidence
relating to the sites, which will be considered in this report, and the
area 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 the
two following years. There were two chalk-walled buildings
of late 13th-century date. A brick building with polygonal
walls may be the Hope playhouse of 1613. A brick-built
furnace and the south wall of the glasshouse known to exist at
the site in the late 17th century were found, along with debris
containing evidence of glass manufacturing with fragments of
crucible pots and bottles. The glasshouse was replaced in 1748
by an iron works. Several brick buildings, including a flue
associated with metalworking, a brick-lined pit and a drain,
could be related to this activity. Associated deposits contained
copper-alloy objects and slag. Other buildings on the site
included 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 warehouses
related to wharves on Bankside (Mackinder in prep).
Nearby archaeological excavations
EWH08
Empire Warehouse, Bear Gardens, SE1 (NGR 532250 180460)
(Fig 4). Although the southern part of the Hope playhouse was
likely to have been located within this site, deep modern
foundations appear to have removed any traces of it. There were
waterlaid deposits across the whole site and in certain areas
there were concentrations of animal bones, including the
remains of ten large dogs, horses and several bear bones. All are
indicative of bear-baiting taking place on Bankside. They are
probably from either the Hope theatre (1614–56), which was a
dual-purpose arena, or the later Davies Bear Gardens
(1660/62–82). The only other features were a pit filled with
building debris, a possible timber drain and a brick tank that
probably belongs to the 18th-century iron foundry
(unpublished MOLA archive).
BAN95
Benbow House, Bear Gardens, SE1 (NGR 532233 180510) (Fig
4). Large medieval chalk footings for a building or a riverside
revetment were revealed. Above was a series of foundation walls
for five buildings dating from the medieval period to the 19th
century. In the south of the site a series of three timber piles
5
Introduction
beneath robbed-out wall foundations that date to the 16th–17th
centuries may represent the corner of a large building, probably
Bear Garden 3 (below, NGW00). Overlying these foundations
was a large amount of 17th-century glasshouse waste that may
have derived from the Bear Garden glasshouse, established in
1671; these glass deposits were succeeded by a number of 18th-
and 19th-century brick foundation walls (Mackinder and
Blatherwick 2000).
BNS98
The Anchor public house, 1–2 Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532440
180400) (Fig 4). The earliest deposits exposed were dump layers
dating to the late 16th or early 17th century. Brick structures
and buildings were constructed from the 17th century, with
building work dating from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries
(unpublished MOLA archive).
BKS81
5–15 Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532360 180450) (Fig 4). Excavations
revealed a waterlaid sequence, probably part of a large creek
running inland from the river. The lowest level comprised a
thick peat deposit. A dump of mid 14th-century pottery
suggested the possibility of an unknown kiln on Bankside
producing Surrey white wares. The site had been built up
relatively late, the sequence being overlain by the fragmentary
remains of 16th- and 17th-century buildings (unpublished
DGLA archive).
5BS87
Farther east under the same address as previous (NGR 532400
180450) (Fig 4). Three trenches here revealed flooded and
reclaimed marshland and drainage channels of medieval date.
Chalk foundation walls of the 14th century and later brick walls
relating to buildings along Bankside were recorded. A timber
revetment incorporating reused planking from a medieval
clinker-built boat was located 10m from the modern bank.
Farther to the north chalk rubble had been dumped to form the
foundations for the 14th-century stone river wall (unpublished
DGLA archive).
37BS87
37–46 Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532180 180510). This is now the
site of the reconstructed Globe playhouse. Excavations in 1987
found the tops of at least three parallel east–west revetments of
16th-century date. These were constructed of reused timber,
including parts of Tudor wheelbarrows, and are probably part
of fish tanks or ponds (unpublished DGLA archive).
NGW00
New Globe Walk, SE1 (NGR 532220 180480) (Fig 4). Alluvium
overlain by organic material filled a former channel of the
6
Thames. The channel fills were cut by a pond whose silts
contained bones from mastiff-size dogs used in the bear-baiting
and from horses that had apparently been fed to them. This
dated to after 1580, and may have been associated with Bear
Garden 3, which was active from c 1540 to 1613, and was rebuilt
c 1583. A stable or kennel, probably associated with a later phase
of bear-baiting at the Hope (Bear Garden 4), overlay the pond.
In the 17th century, the site was occupied by several phases of
glassworks and potteries. A dump of ‘biscuit’ wasters, trivets
(spacers), saggars and square shelf tiles from the pottery dated to
1630–80. The remains of later post-medieval structures probably
belonged to later industrial activity on the site, which continued
in 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 1310–1040
BC (2970±40 BP), was revealed. The peat appears to have been
truncated by fluvial action, probably during the 15th to 17th
centuries (unpublished AOC Archaeology archive).
PSE02
Union Works, 60 Park Street, SE1 (NGR 532230 180440) (Fig
4). Work in 2002, investigation in August 2004 and recent work
in 2008 has revealed the gallery walls and yard of the 1662–82
Davies Bear Garden (Bear Garden 5) and evidence of a later
glassworks on the site. During 2004 and 2008 archaeological
evaluation revealed the northern and southern inner walls of
the bear-baiting arena. The walls were some 21m apart and
formed the inner yard of the arena. The latest investigation has
revealed further evidence of the inner and outer gallery walls,
both foundations and pier bases and later industrial activity on
the site. Early interpretation of the site (see also PRU05 below)
would suggest the bays of Bear Garden 5 were c 4.0m in depth
and that, including the galleries, the bear gardens would have
measured c 29.5m–30m across (Saxby 2004 and pers comm for
ongoing (November 2008) work).
PRU05
58 Park Street, SE1 (NGR 532242 180423) (Fig 4). A 17th-
century brick wall provisionally interpreted as being associated
with the bear garden was found within test pit 1. The height of
this wall was revealed at 2.31m OD, the same height as the
southern wall of the arena found at PSE02 (see above). Here,
the northern inner wall and the gravel arena surface were also
found. A clay tobacco pipe bowl, found within the silts adjacent
to the wall, dates to 1660–80, contemporary with the Bear
Garden (Saxby 2006).
SIP88
Skin Market Place, Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532170 180450) (Fig
4). An excavation in 1988–9 located a previously unknown

island of high sand that yielded Neolithic pottery and flints and
was sealed by flood deposits and early medieval ditches. These
were covered in turn by further flood clays of 14th- to 15th-
century date. There was also evidence of the timber-revetted
17th-century fish ponds of the King’s Pike Garden (unpublished
DGLA archive).
TFB99
Thames Foreshore, Bankside, SE1 (NGR 532270 180530).
Alluvial clays and sands were recorded below the foreshore
layers. Various timber structures and isolated posts and beams
associated with riverfront revetments, as well as 19th- and 20th-
century shuttering, were observed. Two timber drains, probably
of 19th-century date, were also found. Below the foreshore the
truncated remains of a late medieval revetment were revealed
over a distance of at least 6.8m; other timbers farther east may
have been a continuation of the same. A small section of late
medieval barge bed was found consisting of a section of clinker
boat planking with chalk packing behind (unpublished PCA
archive).
1.3 Organisation of this report
Following the introduction, Chapter 2 provides three
background studies: Bankside is examined first in natural and
secondly in historical terms, with an emphasis on the medieval
and post-medieval documentary history of the core area. In the
third section a brief outline of the known history of theatre in
London and beyond is offered, concentrating on what was
known of the construction and development of the London
playhouses before the new information provided by the
excavations discussed in this volume. Chapters 3 and 4 provide
fully integrated chronological narratives for the Rose and the
Globe excavations, starting with documentary and
archaeological evidence for pre-playhouse land use. The
evidence of the construction, alterations and rebuilding of the
two playhouses is supported by documentary and archaeological
data including artefactual material and environmental
indicators. An account of the closure and demolition of the
playhouses is then followed by brief summaries of the post-
playhouse developments at both sites.
Chapter 5 examines every aspect of the buildings from
builders, materials and layout to sections on individual
structural components of the playhouses. This physical evidence
is then allied to architectural and constructional experience in
order 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. A
summary compares the archaeological evidence with the
documentary sources and offers a new synopsis of our current
knowledge. Chapter 6 examines what evidence there is for
activity within the buildings, using documentary sources and
Organisation of this report
analysis of the artefactual remains. Subjects relevant to current
theatre research such as function, finance and performance are
looked at with the evidence for costume and consumption by
those using the buildings. A summary attempts to look at the
relationship between management, actors and audience within a
wider social environment.
The conclusion (Chapter 7) summarises the significance of
the findings in the light of current academic debate and suggests
areas where further research or excavation may be desirable.
The first part of Chapter 8 provides a reproduction of the
relevant historical documentation, after which specialist
appendices describe methodologies and present discussions to
support arguments advanced in the earlier parts of the book,
followed by catalogues and tables of material. It should be
noted that although there is a vast bibliography on early
playhouses, much of which has been read by the authors of the
present volume, only relevant pieces have been included in the
present bibliography. Initial published reactions to the
excavations, largely but not exclusively by theatre historians,
were equally numerous but, again, have not all been referred to
here.
The chronological narratives utilise an archaeological
structure defined for the moderately tight time span in which
these playhouses flourished. A simple framework of periods,
straddling both sites, was imposed:
· period 1 refers to the natural environment. The direct
evidence for this period was generally limited to deep
sondages, although some of the alluvial clays encountered
turned out to be redeposited. This period is mainly discussed
in 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 earlier
post-medieval eras (Chapter 3.2 and 4.2). Much of the
evidence 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 the
landscape, however, were undoubtedly still present during the
lifetime of the playhouses;
· period 3 covers the known lifetime of both playhouses
although there is a time overlap. The Rose covers the period
1587–1606 (Chapter 3.3) and the Globe 1599–c 1650 (Chapter
4.3). There are subdivisions for both buildings, however,
reflecting two major phases of construction and a third phase
of closure, decay and demolition;
· period 4 is a broad category that largely falls outside the scope
of 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 by
archaeological evidence. The periods examined in greatest detail
are those directly following the demolition of the playhouses in
order to determine their immediate fate.
Though these periods refer to both sites, numbered land
uses within them are specific to each. Thus at the Rose site
period 2 consists largely of Open Area 2, Structure 1 and
7
Introduction
Building 1 (‘Cholmley’s house’). Features of Open Area 2 and
Building 1 continued to exist during the lifetime of the
playhouse, but it has been more useful to include description
and discussion of certain topographical features, such as
boundary ditches, under the heading of Building 2 (the Rose
playhouse), which forms period 3. Open Area 3, the immediate
sealing of the demolished playhouse remains, is the only land
use from period 4 discussed in detail, although mention is made
of the succeeding Buildings 3–5.
For the Globe site, period 2 includes Open Areas 2–3 and
Structures 1–3. Period 3 includes Building 1 (the Globe
playhouse), Open Areas 4–5 and Structure 2. Period 4 includes
various post-playhouse activities and comprises Open Areas 6–9
and Buildings 2–6.
The site archives that form the basis for this report are
publicly accessible in the archive of the Museum of London and
may be consulted by prior arrangement at the London
Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC),
Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1
7ED. The evidence presented in this publication can be related
back to the physical and research archives through reference to
the appropriate site codes and individual archaeological context
numbers. Indexes relate artefacts and ecofacts to these contexts,
with the more important individual items provenanced through
catalogue 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 of
archaeological finds or strata a series of prefix codes has been
assigned to the major playhouse sites. In this report the five sites
are referred to by a prefix letter as listed in Table 1. Two basic
units are also referred to in the text: the context number and
(occasionally) the group number. The context number is a
unique number given to each archaeological event on the site,
such as a layer, cut, fill, wall and so on. During analysis the
contexts are finally aggregated into groups representing more
complex features on the basis of interpretation following
standard MOLA practice.
Numbered archaeological contexts are noted within square
brackets and prefixed by the site code, for example: A[100],
representing context 100 from site A (SBH88). There is
occasional reference, particularly within the specialist reports, to
the numbered archaeological groups, as for example: group A1,
representing group 1 from site A. The land-use units are
described as Buildings (B), Open Areas (OA) and Structures (S);
there are separate numerical series for the Rose and for the
Globe.
Some categories of find have been given sequential numbers
within the research archive. Each catalogue covers material
drawn from all the sites excavated and there is therefore no need
for a site-letter prefix. To indicate clearly to which catalogue
8
reference is being made, a prefix denoting the category appears
inside 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 of
materials) no. 1;
<ST1> refers to item of structural timber no. 1.
For each entry, the catalogue number with appropriate letter
prefix is given (in angled brackets), then a brief identifier of
object type and the figure number where appropriate; this is
followed by the accessioned find number (in angled brackets) if
the object has been assigned one, context number (in square
brackets), period of context from which the object was
recovered, and land use. The following abbreviations are used in
catalogue entries: L (length); W (width); Th (thickness); Diam
(diameter); H (height).
Where uncatalogued small finds are referred to, the original
accession number (in angled brackets) is given along with the
site-letter prefix, thus: A<100>, representing accessioned find
<100> from site A. Environmental sample numbers, where
necessary, are shown in curly brackets, thus: A{100}.
This publication employs standard Museum of London
reference codes for ceramics; these codes were developed by
the MOL for recording purposes. A fabric number system is
used to record building materials (tile and brick); these numbers
relate to detailed fabric descriptions. Pottery is recorded using
codes (alphabetic or a combination of alphabetic and numeric)
for fabrics, forms and decoration. Expansions of pottery codes
are given at the first mention in a text section. Detailed
descriptions of the building material fabrics and complete lists
of the pottery codes, their expansions and date ranges are
available from the LAARC as part of the research archive and
are also posted on the LAARC and MOLA pages of the MOL
website: www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk
Some measurements cited from documents are in pre-
metric imperial units: 12 inches (in) equal 1 foot (ft); 3ft equal 1
yard; 1ft equals 0.305m. Other common measurements of the
period include the pole, also known as a rod or a perch, which
at this time was 16ft 6in (5.03m). Sums of money quoted in the
text are as cited in £, s and d, where 12 pence (d) made one
shilling (s) and 20 shillings (or 240d) a pound (£), or in marks,
where one mark equals 13s 4d and three marks equals £2, since
modern equivalents would be misleading. Dyer (1989, xv)
provides the following reminder on which to base an
approximation to current values: ‘a skilled building worker
earned 2d per day in 1250, 4d per day in 1400 and 6d in 1500’.
Dates are expressed throughout with the year beginning on
1 January rather than on 25 March as was the custom in Britain
until 1754. County names in the text refer to historic counties.
The playhouse known as The Theatre, built in Shoreditch in
1576, is capitalised in order to avoid confusion with theatre
generally.
References to Henslowe’s Diary are from the latest edition
(Foakes 2002, a revision of the 1961 edition by Foakes and
Rickert), although the earlier editions by Greg (1904; 1907;
 Graphical and textual conventions used in this report

1908) have been studied. The Diary (DC, MS VII) and other
documents have also been examined in the original at Dulwich
College and elsewhere.
The graphical conventions used in the plans in this report
are shown in Fig 5. Scales of reproduction are given in the
figure captions as appropriate.

Fig 5 Graphical conventions used in this report