Yes, I went there (Jenna, Blog 11 first response)

 1970 production of Hamlet, (Ian McKellan)

2008 RSC production of Hamlet (David Tennant)

Sorry everyone for being rather cliché, but I encountered some difficulty in trying to imagine a production moment as iconic as this one that had readily available photos. The only other one I could think of was the table scene from Tartuffe. Unfortunately, a table is more of a set piece than a prop, so we have Yorick instead. ( At least I make no claims to have known him....Horatio...)
  

The first image is from a 1970 production directed by Robert Chetwyn that toured Europe and was later televised. From the lighting, I'd say that this image comes from the filmed version. The second image is actually a production photo, though. It is from the Royal Shakespeare Company's 2008 production, directed by Gregory Doran.

In their discussion of props, Sofer and Harris both call upon concepts that bridge past and present through use of object. Harris uses the concept of palimpsest while Sofer uses one of ghosting, but both of them present props as objects that have already been written upon or have the potential to write upon something or someone else. Additionally, Sofer argues that props are unique in theatre in that they have been scripted by a playwright who has little control over their use. He writes, “Precisely because of its radical instability as a theatrical signifier, playwrights have seized on the prop as a tool for destabilizing the conventional symbolism previously embodied by the now ambiguous object. Although they cannot legislate the prop's impact, playwrights can seek to orchestrate the prop's movement through concrete stage space and linear stage time (61-62). Hence, Sofer argues that props are attractive for their ability to ghost and destabilize symbols even though the playwright loses some control over the meaning they construct onstage in performance. I'm particularly interested in that loss of control.

In their roles in production, props may be used in moderately differing ways from one production to the next. Sofer writes,"The prop's impact is mediated both by the gestures of the individual actor who handles the object, and by the horizon of interpretation available to historically situated spectators at a given time” (61).

Various actors have individual ways of interacting with props and directors and designers have varying ways to design what those props might look like. In that way, props fail to completely belong to the archive. Yet, there are particular props that have become so iconic that the differences of their usage in performance become significantly smaller. In that way, their appearance onstage throughout various eras can form its own archive. The Yorick skull from Hamlet is a perfect example.

For whatever reason, but perhaps because a skull is an object which offers few variations on how to interact with it, performance of “Alas, poor Yorick” fails Sofer's assertion that props destabilize through ghosting. Rather, the fixity of ways in which the Hamlet actor holds the skull has created stability and script so that the prop has become emblematic of Hamlet, Hamlet, and Shakespeare. Yorick is an object that can only write upon itself. Yet, while Yorick's ghost is an insular one that calls back to previous incarnations of itself onstage rather than to exterior skulls, non theatrical performances frequently allude to Yorick. Hence, we are inundated with images like these:

 http://www.slapthepenguin.com/2010/11/product-review-crystal-head-vodka.html

 http://maryannreilly.blogspot.com/2011/12/guest-blog-rob-cohen-social-mapping.html

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/goopymart/favorites/page4/?view=md

 

http://cheezburger.com/1337946368

These images function in the manner that Sofer suggests props function so that individual performers and viewers mediate Shakespeare through gesture and context. Here, through emblematic prop, "skull" has become a scriptive thing which invites its viewer to perform "Shakespeare."