Short inscriptions can be notoriously difficult to interpret, and in cases where the archaeological context is unclear, it may not be possible to determine whether an ownership inscription was intended to add prestige to personal property or to mark a votive offering. The scarcity of certain scripts during this period might point to the latter scenario as being more plausible. This might apply to the alphabetic cuneiform inscriptions incised on a bronze knife at Nahal Tabor (Horowitz et al. 2006: Tabor 1, 152, 163–166), and clay axe head from Beth Shemesh (Horowitz et al. 2006: Beth Shemesh 1, 157–160). The latter was made in a mould and then impressed with a stylus while the clay was still moist. It was found in a domestic context, and although the text is an incomplete abecedary, it is unlikely to represent a training piece. Not only does it appear on an unusual object (symbolic, rather than functional, as indicated by the unusual choice of material for this form), but the text itself has to be read by rotating the object — an unhelpful characteristic if the purpose had been to educate.
A clearer use of script to mark dedications is seen on a clay model bread offering from Beth Shan level VI, stamped with the hieroglyphic phrase imny.t, or ‘daily offering’ (Higginbotham 2000: 225, although for an alternative interpretation, see Brandl 2009: 662–663; James 1966: fig. 105.9–10, 12). Other examples include a ceramic jar from the level VII temple at Beth Shan, bearing the word ‘ka’ in painted cursive hieroglyphs (Figure 8; James and McGovern 1993: 181, fig. 11.4), a jug with painted Proto-Canaanite dedicatory inscription to ‘my lady Elat’ found in the Fosse Temple at Lachish (Tufnell et al. 1940: 47–54), a cuneiform Akkadian dedication cut into a stone vessel from a ritual context at Hazor (Horrowitz et al. 2006: 85–86, Hazor 13), and a ceramic jug from the same site with a symbol representing the god Addu, incised before the vessel was fired, and a personal name, Isme-Addul, scratched in cuneiform into the surface afterwards (Horowitz et al. 2006: 65–66, Hazor 1). Official ritual activity may be represented by a fragmentary execration text in hieratic found on a ceramic storage jar fragment in a temple courtyard at Beth Shan, which has been interpreted as protection of the site against evil forces (Higginbotham 2000: 45–46; James and McGovern 1993: 181, fig. 15.6). This was painted onto the surface after firing.
Within this group, objects such as the clay axehead, model bread offering, and Addu and Elat jugs appear to have been made specifically as votive offerings. For some, the form is exceptional or specialised in function, while for others the nature of the inscription or decoration adds meaning to the shape. However the other objects and vessels could have been produced with other purposes in mind, as their inscriptions were all created subsequent to manufacture of the form. It is only by the addition of the texts that they are tailored for ritual use, a potential that is realised when the actual act of dedication takes place. Their archaeological contexts show that this was achieved in the majority of cases.
An important class of object that should also be considered under this category of ritual activity is represented by a series of ceramic bowls, and possibly two jars, bearing hieratic inscriptions added after firing in ink (Figure 9; Goldwasser 1984; 1991; Goldwasser and Wimmer 1999). These inscriptions have been found at Lachish, Tel Haror, Tell Far’ah South, Tell Sera’, and Deir el Balah, and initially provide something of a dilemma in terms of how the text should be interpreted. On the one hand, their content seems quite administrative in nature, recording specific dates and quantities of grain (in some cases, very large quantities); they are usually viewed in the context of produce being delivered from Canaanite vassals to Egyptian authorities as part of their tax burden. Yet it seems wrong to view the bowls themselves as a form of ‘documentation’ (Goldwasser and Wimmer 1999: 41) because the way in which the texts are applied to the vessels themselves is anything but administrative.
Many of our surviving examples are fragmentary, but from the more complete bowls we can see that inscriptions were placed on the exterior and sometimes on the interior as well, in one to two horizontal registers following the curvature of the walls. Opinion is divided as to whether the text read from inside to outside, or vice versa (Sweeney 2004: 1607), but they do appear to have been read together. Yet how easy is it to read this sort of inscription? To understand the text, you need to turn the bowl around in your hands and tilt it to different angles, to compensate for the curvature both inside and outside. On the exterior, there is the additional problem on this example of the everted rim making it hard to read the top line, unless you hold the bowl rather unnaturally. Then, if you put anything in the bowl — surely the point of a bowl? — you cannot read the interior inscriptions at all.
As an administrative record, this makes little sense, being hard to read and not remotely suited to either storage or retrieval. Wimmer’s early idea that the bowls served as ‘receipts’ for taxation, should therefore be discounted (Wimmer 1990: 1090; cf. Higginbotham 2000: 63). Of course, as recognised by Goldwasser, while these bowls seem to record an administrative event, they represent in themselves not a bureaucratic object, but a religious one (Goldwasser 1984: 85; Goldwasser and Wimmer 1999: 41). This is because the recipient of the grain taxes they record were temple authori- ties, and as such the two roles overlapped. As votive objects, the text makes much more sense in relation to the object, as its aim is not to be ‘read’ by the living, but to give meaning to an event, and be ‘read’ by the gods. An ordinary bowl, by virtue of the added inscription, and being then made part of a ritual act whereby goods are being ‘offered’ to the temple, becomes representative of a much larger process, namely the subjugation of Canaan to Egypt and the provision of resources to Egyptian temple estates, such as the temple of Amun in PaCanaan (Higginbotham 2000: 56–59).
In Egypt, bowls are sometimes the bearers of votive inscriptions, but with some differences; there, the texts tend to relate to much smaller food offerings and the vessels themselves are often model forms (Goldwasser 1984: 85). There are however some exceptions. Occasional examples are known of hieratic letters being written on offering bowls and then being left in tombs as a way of communicating with the dead, often asking them to intervene in family problems (e.g. Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UC 16163), while execration texts are also sometimes written on bowls before being ritually broken. The tradition of bowl inscriptions back in Egypt clearly favoured the use of hieratic. Was this choice of script for the Canaanite tax bowls a continuation of this tradition, or did it reflect some local factor, such as the circumstances under which the texts were written (perhaps reflecting a lack of time to draft formal hieroglyphs), or the types of scribes available (administrative rather than religious)?
In Canaan, uninscribed bowls appear to have a particular role as votive offerings in the temples of Lachish and may have been locally produced specifically for that purpose (Goldwasser 1984: 85; Tufnell et al. 1940: 81; a similar abundance of bowls was noticed in the governor’s residence of Tell Sera’, Oren 1972: 169). It may be hypothesised that the inscribed examples had a related role, but one that related more specifically to the Egyptian deities who were the recipients of these grain levies. The bowl form would be suited to a dry, rather than a liquid offering, and may well have contained a sample of the produce it represented, while the actual goods (in one case, at least 2000 sacks) would probably have bypassed the temple sanctuary and been delivered directly to one of its storerooms or warehouses (Goldwasser 1984: 80). The actual practice of combining tax inscription with offering bowl may therefore represent a hybrid response combining existing local custom, the use of votive offering bowls, with an Egyptian formula and script.
