The Well of Offerings

The separation imposes a modern dichotomy. In the ancient world, curse tablets (defixiones) were ritual acts addressed to underworld powers and were often deposited in sanctuaries, wells and graves; they were not a separate 'religion.' The well assemblage is a single depositional context: figurines, lamps, tablets and the nymphs dedication may all be offerings or ritual acts by the same community. Lamps and figurines could accompany curses or thank the nymphs; the tablets may ask the nymphs to act. The dedication to 'the nymphs' shows that the well was a sacred place, so labelling the tablets 'magic' as opposed to 'religion' would misrepresent ancient practice.

The terms are etic, or outsider, categories. 'Magic' in modern museum language often carries a judgment of irrationality, which the education officer rightly wants to avoid. A better contrast is between different ritual aims - healing, protection, curse - within one cult context. The display should not imply that the figurines represent 'belief' while the tablets represent 'superstition.' Both are material traces of people trying to communicate with divine powers.

Without stratigraphy, we cannot say whether the items were deposited together, in what order, or over what period. The 1935 label 'well, sanctuary area' gives a findspot but not a sequence. That limits claims about function: a lamp found near a curse tablet may be unrelated. It also limits dating: the fourth-to-second-century range may be too broad. The display should not say 'worshippers deposited these together' or 'the tablets were thrown in during a crisis.' It can say 'found in a well in the sanctuary area' and 'the assemblage suggests ritual activity,' which are claims the record can support.

The missing context is itself worth explaining to school groups. It shows how archaeological interpretation depends on recording, and it gives the education officer a way to discuss uncertainty without undermining the display. The officer can invite visitors to notice what is absent - the layers, the exact positions, the associated structures - and to see that a museum label is an argument, not a transparent window.

'Offerings and curses from a sacred well: terracotta figurines, lamps, lead tablets and a dedication to the nymphs were found together in a well near a sanctuary, probably deposited between the fourth and second centuries BCE. Because the excavation was poorly recorded, we cannot reconstruct the individual rituals, but the finds show that people brought everyday objects and written requests to a place associated with divine powers.'

The label avoids 'magic' as a separate category, names the objects, gives a date range with 'probably,' and states the evidential limit in plain language. It also avoids claiming that all items were deposited at once. The phrase 'written requests' is accessible and accurate for curse tablets without dismissing them as superstition. The education officer could add a second label near the tablets explaining that defixiones were a normal part of ancient ritual practice, not a marginal or irrational activity.