The Independent: "British archaeologists have unearthed a Roman amphitheatre the size of the Pantheon at the site of a port which once supplied Rome and its legions.
In the 2nd century, Portus was a gateway to the Mediterranean. Twice the size of Southampton, it now lies two miles inland, close to the runway at Fiumicino airport."
8 comments:
I think this story is really great because it gives light to the early history of theatre. Other disciplines have a lot of mythic history about their roots. Physics has Newton and the apple and Benjamin Franklin and the kite for example. But sites like this can give us clues to how theatre was done thousands of years ago, and by making a comparison, can teach us much about theatre. Its wonderful this site was found, and hopefully more will by uncovered soon.
I think the location of this theater speaks to the audience it was trying to draw in or accommodate. Because it was so close to a port, I agree with the author, that it was made to entertain guests to the land. It would be a great move on the part of the government to make their "welcome port" accessible to not just foreigners, but impressive in size and presentation. This is a monument that speaks of the importance of theater to the Romans as well as the quality of work they wanted to get from it.
This article brings to mind a rather interesting question. If theater has been a part of people's lives for so long, is it something we intrinsically need? Much like music, it seems that where people (and civilization) went, theater wasn't far behind. From the Greeks to the Romans, the Japanese to the early Americans, disconnected people the world over have all had some form of theater in their cultures. We know that music has an effect on the brain that no other stimulus can provide (according to modern neuroscience). If studied, would theater also have a singular effect?
Aside from that, I think it's amazing that they not only uncovered this theater, but the fact that it still survived.
I always find it interesting that the farther you go back in history, the better built things were. This theater had a variety of factors working against it, being near the ocean and a couple centuries of being buried probably did not do the structure any good, and yet it's still recognizable, and probably completely functional. I know that the Roman style of theater was technically just a large set of stairs/stadium seating set into an already existing hill, but theirs something to be said for the fact that people today can still go and visit the site, and performances could probably still happen there as well.
I personally find history one of the most fascinating subjects, exculding theater. I think this is because youfind a trend in humanity. By finding this theater, i shows that theater is not simply a past time simply for entertainment, but rather a necessity, something that the humanrace needs to survive. Overall, the excavations of the city have only reenforced this ideal.
I find it interesting that even to this day we are discovering more about the roots of theatre, and how much of a part of culture it always has been. What sort of shows were preformed there, who might have graced the huge area that the excavation team has discovered? All of these questions bring me back to the conclusion that even since its birth, theatre has been ingrained in humanity, that it is the most intimate form of storytelling and art.
I hope to hear more about the site as it is further uncovered. What if we learn something about costume and properties as they were in that time.
I like that the article states that this might be evidence of hospitality towards foreigners. I think that theatre is a wonderful way of welcoming someone. It allows the visitor to see how a certain culture expresses themselves, allowing them to slowly acclimate to their new surroundings, instead of just being thrown in without any idea what this nation's values or ideals are.
It's always interesting to learn more about theatrical history. Especially from an era where all our knowledge is fragmented. What I find the most interesting though is the final comment about the character of the king and how social interactions well outside the realm of theatre could be gleaned from a ruined amphitheater. The location is interesting as Liz pointed out, because it implies that many people gathered at this theatre. The size too indicates this.
It reminds me almost of an olympic stadium. A large communal performance space positioned right on a river. I always think that it's such a waste of valuable land (you don't watch the river from the theatre after all). But it makes sense in this case.
Post a Comment