The cave deposit: nymphs, hero or rubbish?
A limestone cave 2 km from a small town has produced a deposit excavated in the 1970s and never fully published: 214 objects, comprising 128 female terracotta figurines, 30 bronze finger rings, 12 lamps, and 4 bronze coins dated between about 345 and 300 BC. Animal bone totals 1,900 fragments; 70% is sheep/goat, and about 40% of the identifiable sheep/goat bones are neonatal. There is no built architecture, only a levelled area near the mouth and patches of ash. A broken limestone slab preserves only the letters “…AIS”. There is no site plan, the find-spots were recorded only by trench, and half the cave was dug without sieving. A local heritage society wants to open the site as “The Nymphaeum” and has already printed the leaflets. The curator asks you for a written assessment before the grant application goes in.
1. Assess the strength of the “Nymphaeum” identification. Rank the competing interpretations and say clearly what the evidence will and will not support.
Read the worked answer
Rank on evidential strength, not on attractiveness.
- Cult site, deity uncertain (strongest). Figurines, rings, lamps and ash together are the classic signature of repeated votive deposition in a natural cave: cheap, mass-produced offerings, light for darkness, personal dedications. Caves without architecture are normal sanctuaries; the absence of buildings is not an argument against cult, because the cave is the shrine.
- Domestic or rubbish dump (possible but weaker). Lamps and coarse bone fit habitation, but 128 female figurines and 30 rings in one deposit are not what a household throws away. The ash patches, however, could be hearths; this needs the site plan that does not exist.
- Hero or chthonic cult rather than nymphs (still open). Neonatal sheep/goat at 40% is suggestive, since some chthonic and nymph cults used young animals, but natural neonatal mortality is high and the bones may be unburnt food waste. Without butchery and burning data, this is a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
The inscription decides nothing as it stands. “...AIS” is compatible with ΝΥΜΦΑΙΣ, ΘΕΑΙΣ and several other datives; it is also compatible with a boundary marker. It is the only potentially direct evidence and it is broken exactly where the meaning is.
Verdict: “Probable cult site of the 4th–3rd c. BC; deity unidentified.” The leaflet title should be withdrawn until the reassessment is published.
2. Distinguish diagnostic from corroborative evidence here, and design the minimum fieldwork that would let you publish a defensible interpretation.
Read the worked answer
Diagnostic vs corroborative. Corroborative evidence is consistent with your hypothesis but also with its rivals; diagnostic evidence discriminates between them. Most of this assemblage is corroborative. Figurines are found in sanctuaries, houses and tombs. Lamps are ubiquitous. Coins in a cave may be offerings, losses or later intrusion. Rings could be dedications or personal losses. None of these rules anything out, and that is exactly their limit.
The only potentially diagnostic item is the inscription, and it is too damaged to diagnose. The bones could become diagnostic if they show a pattern no natural death assemblage produces.
Minimum programme, in order of cost-effectiveness:
- Re-examine and re-record the bones: burning, cut marks, body-part representation, ageing of the neonates, and whether neonatal bones cluster in one area. High diagnostic value, low cost.
- 3D-plot every object from the trench records and check for structured deposition - repeated sets, stacks, placement near the mouth - rather than random scatter.
- Compare the figurine moulds: repeats from one mould indicate batch dedication, which rubbish does not produce.
- Sieve the remaining unexcavated deposit and search the spoil for the other half of the slab.
- Thin-section the slab only if a local quarry source would date it; otherwise leave it.
Publish the negative results too. “Unable to distinguish” is a finding, and a more useful one than a leaflet.