The Ammonite Bottle and Phoenician Flasksanes 40 (2003) 62–79

62 THE AMMONITE BOTTLE AND PHOENICIAN FLASKSANES 40 (2003) 62–79 The Ammonite Bottle and Phoenician Flasks Joseph AZIZE Department of Ancient History University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA Fax: +61 2 93517760 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Modern views of the nature of the Tell Siran bottle and its inscription are considered. It is suggested that all of the word dividers should be respected when the inscription is read. The inscription is not likely to refer to wine, as commonly suggested. The artefact’s plastic form resembles that of some ancient ‘unguent flasks’ and may indicate that it was meant to strike the beholder as being the con- tainer of precious materials. It is tentatively suggested that the bottle, considered as whole, comprised a talisman for King Amminadab’s enjoyable longevity.* The bottle inscription is among the most interesting and perplexing of the texts collated in Aufrecht’s Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. It has con- sistently attracted the attention of scholars since its discovery in 1972, and will probably continue to do so, being the only inscribed bronze bottle known to us from the ancient Near East, and because of the enigamatic elu- siveness of its final, poetic lines. The are four parts to this essay: 1 A summary of some major points in modern studies of the bottle inscription. 2 A critical discussion of these ideas. 3 Some tentative suggestions for re-interpretation of the inscription. 4 Discussion of similarities between the bottle and ancient unguent flasks. 1 The Bottle In the editio princeps of this inscription, the authors stated that the bottle had been found at Tell Siran, on the campus of the University of Jordan, * I respectfully dedicate this essay to Dr Eric Gubel, whose assistance has been apparent in this essay; and to Dr Ian Young, who bravely invited me to address his fourth year honours class with these ideas, and made many telling criticisms and suggestions. JOSEPH AZIZE 63 northwest of Amman, on 27 April 1972. The evidence from its siting indi- cated that it had probably been used as late as the Mameluke period (1174– 1516). However, the inscription’s epigraphy suggested a date of compos tion in the sixth or seventh centuries BCE. The artefact was therefore ancient even in the Mameluke period.1 There is some controversy as to whether the script is Aramaic, or an Ammonite script which had been de- veloped from Aramaic.2 Zayadine and Thompson suggested that it may have been used as a weight for balance scales, as a magic amulet, or a talisman. At the end of their article, they asked whether it may have been intended as an offering of first fruits.3 The bottle is ten centimetres in length, and was weighed at 273.4 grams. The cap of the bottle was removed by fil- ing one of the riveted ends of the pin, which pierced the neck of the bottle and held the cap securely in place. The cap was then pried off with a thin knife blade. The cap’s edges seem to have been hammered down to main- tain better contact with the bottle. The bottle and cap were of the same bronze mixture, while the makeup of the pin was similar, except that it con- tained less tin.4 The contents of the bottle were chiefly seeds of barley and wheat, with a few weed seeds.5 One assumes that the weed seeds were inadvertently scooped up with the others at the time of their introduction into the bottle. There had also been some sort of copper object inside the bottle, but over the years it has disintegrated. The writers were only willing to concede that it was ‘vaguely possible’ that these metallic traces represented corrosion from the bottle, as their metallic makeup was different from that of the bottle and cap. Without its contents, the bottle weighed considerably less, only 184.2 grams, and the cap 36.8 grams.6 Carbon 14 dating of the contents provided a date of about 460 BCE. This is about 150 years later than the inscription, but is probably due to contamination upon the opening of the bottle. Thompson noted: ‘It is not 1 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, pp. 115–117. 2 Aramaic script is proposed by Zayadine and Thompson 1973, p. 117. On the other hand, Cross 1973 contended that it was the Ammonite hand. Cross’s interpretation of the text is very similar to that of Zayadine and Thompson. 3 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, pp. 116 and 139. I am not sure whether they meant that the usages proposed at p. 116 (as a weight, an amulet or talisman) are in addition to its pur- pose as a first fruits offering. It may be that they mean that in the sixth century BCE it was a first fruits offering, and in the Mameluke period it was used otherwise. 4 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, p. 117. The bronze of the cap and bottle included copper, lead and tin. 5 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, p. 118. 6 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, p. 118. 7 Thompson 1987, p. 336. 64 THE AMMONITE BOTTLE AND PHOENICIAN FLASKS impossible though unlikely that the grain was put in this much later.’7 In this respect, one might observe that the cap, made of the same metal as the bottle, was hammered down over the bottle’s neck and held by a pin. I think it most unlikely that the grain was inserted after the bottle had been initially sealed. Zayadine and Thompson noted four word dividers, and opined that the dividers before and after the word gnt might show that the artisan who made the engraving did not understand what he was inscribing.8 Aufrecht stated, not entirely correctly, ‘The word dividers are overridden by all com- mentators.’9 I shall discuss this below. Zayadine and Thompson thought that the dividers might have been used when needed for clarity, as line 4 in which they are concentrated, is the longest line of the inscription.10 The translation offered with the editio princeps set the scholarly discussion of the inscription, as even variant interpretations still correctly accept the bulk of that translation. Because Zayadine and Thompson’s translation has funda- mentally been accepted by Aufrecht in his study of Ammonite inscriptions, I reproduce his transliteration and translation:11 1 m{bd {mndb mlk bn {mn 2 bn hÒlˆl. mlk bn {mn 3 bn {mndb mlk bn {mn 4 hkrm. wh{.}g{.}nt whˆtÌr 5wˆsÌt 6 ygl wysmÌ 7 bywmt rbm wbsnt 8rÌqt 1 May the produce of Amminadab king of the Ammonites, 2 the son of Hassal’il king of the Ammonites, 3 the son of Amminadab king of the Ammonites — 4 the vineyard and the garden(s) and the hollow 5 and cistern — 6 cause rejoicing and gladness 7 for many days (to come) and in years 8 far off. As Aufrecht observed, the chief studies of the inscription have followed ‘two trajectories of translation and interpretation’. The first trend, which Aufrecht represents, as did Zayadine and Thompson before him, sees it as a 8 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, pp. 118–119. They conceded the possibility that there was a divider in the dent of line 3, but did not think it likely. 9 Aufrecht 1989, p. 209, referring to the dividers in line 4. Loretz 1977, does not override any dividers. 10 Zayadine and Thompson 1973, p. 119. 11 Aufrecht 1989, p. 203. JOSEPH AZIZE 65 ‘building or commemorative inscription’, while the others see it as a poem. The divergent interpretations are based upon differing interpretations of the opening word m{bd, and lines 4 and 5. In favour of reading m{bd as ‘produce’, and not as ‘poem’, Aufrecht cited with approval Coote’s ‘sensible suggestion that this word refers to the contents of the bottle…’.12 Coote had argued in support of his reading, that the bottle probably held a scented oil, and that lines 4 and 5 of the inscription ‘enumerated by me- tonymy’ the natural ingredients of the perfume. That is, while it specifies the ‘royal vineyards, orchards, parks, and poolsides’ it is to be understood as poetically referring to the blossoms and sprig scents’ collected from those places.13 Krahmalkov basically agreed with earlier readings, except in certain mi- nor respects. But even these small differences had a major impact upon the interpretation of the text. He noted that as the text was engraved on a small bottle, not a stele, it was not likely to be a building inscription. This observation prompted the suggestion that the graceful bottle could have been intended as a work of art in itself, and was deliberately given the same shape as a wine storage vessel. Krahmalkov then served notice that his translation would contend that ‘Bottle and text are an harmonious whole conceived and crafted to invite its owner to read, reflect on and ap- preciate the words of Amminadab.’14 The new, more wholistic interpretation read: The poem of Amminadab, the king of the Ammonites, the son of Hassel’el, the king of the Ammonites, the son of Amminadab, the king of the Ammo- nites: ‘To the vineyard and the orchard! Or shall I be left behind and destroyed?’ He (who says this) rejoice and be happy That life is long And there are years as yet unlived.15 Thus, Krahmalkov read lines 1 to 3 as an introduction. He provided certain HB parallels for some of the concepts and poetry of his reinter- pretation, and reasons for each of his variations.

Load more