Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:10:59.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rose reviewed: a comedy(?) of errors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Martin Biddle
Martin Biddle*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Modern History, University of Oxford, Broad Street, Oxford, OX1 3BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The identification, partial excavation, and covering-up again of the Rose Theatre in London this summer roused public interest unparalleled since the discovery of the Temple of Mithras 35 years ago. How is it that the future of an archaeological site of such importance has still to be resolved under threat in a flurry of direct action, injunctions, and media attention? Martin Biddle was almost the only archaeologist not directly involved who was prepared publicly to explore the issues in the press and on radio and television. Here he sets out his views of the lessons of the Rose.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 63 , Issue 241 , December 1989 , pp. 753 - 760
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belcher, V. 1989. A summer of discontent, English Heritage Magazine 7: 14–15.Google Scholar
Bile, M. 1989. Both a will and a way, Guardian, 18 May.Google Scholar
Brown, K. 1989. Early stages, Times Literary Supplement 8–14 September.Google Scholar
Chippendale, C. 1989. Editorial, Antiquity 63:411–13.Google Scholar
Cleere, H.F. 1989. Editorial: always the eleventh hour, British Archaeological News 4: 49 Google Scholar
‘Gromaticus’, . 1989. Commentary, London Archaeologist 6: 88.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, 1. 1989. The Rose Theatre. Report compiled for the Theatres Trust, 31 May.Google Scholar
Orrell, J. & Gurr, A.. 1989. What the Rose can tell us, Antiquity 63: 421–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, C. 1989. A tale of two sites, London Archaeologist 6: 59–65.Google Scholar
Shelbourn, C. 1989. Burying our mistakes? — the ‘palace’ at Huggin Hill, New Law journal (19 May): 676–8.Google Scholar
Survey of London. 1950. Bankside (the parishes of St Saviour’s and Christchurch Southwark). London: London County Council.Google Scholar
Shapiro, I.A. 1989 Letter in the Times, 23 May.Google Scholar