"Archaeological Treasures' in Context, Please? [Updated]

                  Some of the finds from the excavations still in situ

The current state of the public presentation of archaeology is well illustrated by the treatment in the media of a breaking news story from Italy, and the general lack of archaeological commentary on it in the public domain. As has been widely reported (for example, here), at San Casciano dei Bagni in Tuscany a team of archaeologists led by Jacopo Tabolli from Università per Stranieri di Siena and Emanuele Mariotti have excavated from a sealed waterlogged deposit deposit a number of complete and substantially complete bronze statues together with coins, ex voto and Latin and Etruscan inscriptions. The statues were found at the bottom of a thermal pool in a votive sanctuary and are "dated dated between the 2nd c. BCE and the 1st c. CE". The sanctuary here, with its bubbling pools, sloping terraces, fountains, altars, existed at least since the third century BC. and remained active until the fifth century AD. At this stage, excavators claim, the pools were sealed with a layer that contained heavy stone columns from the adjacent temples, and it is thought that it was at this time that the figures of the deities were dumped into the water. The archaeologists therefore found themselves in front of a deposit that was still intact, in fact "the largest deposit of statues in ancient Italy and in any case the only one whose context we have the possibility to completely reconstruct" archaeologist Tabolli says. The news articles are enthusing about the "ancient art" emerging from the mud (excavation conditions are very difficult), oooo-ahhhh.... And yes, the stature are nice. Some have a rather interesting provincial look. The naked goddess lying prone in the mud with slimy mud rubbed all over her body looks like a picture from some depraved porn mag. And the texts go on and on about them. It must be said that the published photos are unfortunately without a scale, and it is difficult to judge from them how big the statues actually are.

The Minister of Culture Gennaro Sangiuliano has already visited the restoration laboratory that has just welcomed the statues and is now applauding: "An exceptional find that confirms once more that Italy is a country made of immense and unique treasures. The stratification of different civilizations is unique in Italian culture ".

The articles only mention the archaeology in passing ("specialists at work here of every discipline, from architects to geologists, from archaeobotanists to experts in epigraphy and numismatics". Archaeobotanists going through the waterlogged deposits, eh? Here we come to the crux of the matter, we should know an immense amount about the deposition of those objects, the state and layout of the site when they went into the water, what elements of building material were present (and what that means), changes in function of the area and so on. That is what the archaeological excavation is for, that is the "context we have the possibility to completely reconstruct". Yet that context is not presented by the articles about the site, just one of the find categories. What is important here are not the statues, but the mud. why is the mud not being written about? If we want the public to understand what archaeology is, we need to tell them what it is, not just present some cherry-picked snippets because they make nice pictures.

So, I would like to know what the actual evidence is that the sanctuary was destroyed "in the 5th century AD", when it had remained active but then "in the Christian era it was closed but not destroyed, the tubs sealed with heavy stone columns, the deities entrusted with respect to water". What is the archaeological and stratigraphic evidence of this date and scenario? Or is this just a romanticised literary trope imposed on the remains? The news items report it uncritically as "fact".

Vignette: It is the site the archaeologists are excavating for knowledge, not a treasure hunt for "things" to display as trophies.

Update 9.11.22
It seems I was misled by the label "archaeologists" used in these articles. Look at the way it seems that excavated material from this site is being documented and handled

https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2022/11/questions-about-san-casciano-dei-bagni.html.

This is very disturbing.