http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad...Non-electrical
'The Baghdad Battery' is actually understood to not be a battery, despite physical appearances, as it simply wouldn't have worked. Also, no uses of electricity have been found in the archeological record; the theories about it being used for electroplating are especially unlikely as no electroplated artifacts have ever been found from that era.
Occam's Razor woudl suggest that it's much more likely to be a storage vessel than a battery.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm a scientist working as a researcher and PhD student in a respected institution, who has been published and presented at an A-rated conference. But that doesn't mean you should respect my views on archaeology. The fact that I do a minute amount of research and question the plausibility of whatever pseudoscience is presented to me should be a better indication of my reliability.