Slashdot Mirror
The Riddle of Baghdad's Battery
Jodrell writes "The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery discovered in Iraq in 1938. It is basically a clay pot containing a copper/iron core immersed in an electrolye solution (probably acidic vinegar). The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war."
Some would say that removing Saddam is more important than any priceless artifacts.
The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war.
And I suppose the artifacts never had anything to fear from Iraq being run by an expansionist, sadistic madman who is known to do things such as setting whole oil fields on fire.
Sorry. I looked everywhere for guilt, but just couldn't find any.
I don't think it was saying they were. What it was saying was that the same people who invented the wheel and writing also invented this battery.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
The article states:
Though this was hard to explain, and did not sit comfortably with the religious ideology of the time, he published his conclusions.
How did identifying it as a battery conflict with religious ideology of the time? I'm truly curious. Any suggestions?
I mean, it couldn't have been because there's no passage saying "And then God invented the battery and said it was good".
Did it confict with the European idea that they were the center of science and religion?
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
Under the right circumstances, ordinary pieces of metal (like plumbing) exposed to acid can make "batteries" by chance. More intriguing is the "un batteried" iron obelisk I recall hearing about in India--an iron monument that has resisted rusting for hundreds of years.
I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.
Of course we can't rule out that they knew something about electricity, but I think we need some clay tablets describing the use of electric devices to confirm it before we can say "ancient battery" with confidence.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Noone wasted time worrying about the art and archaeological treasures in Holland, France or Germany when they liberated Europe from Hitler.
With todays much more precise technology, it's unlikely that archaeological sites would be affected at all.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This is the first war ever fought in the region in the last 2,000 years? Were people concerned about artifacts when Iran and Iraq were blowing the crap out of each other? Were people concerned when Saddam was constructing enormous builings for his personal use?
Perspective... It's not just for breakfast anymore.
No sig, sorry.
How much German, Japanese, and European history was destroyed in the early 20th century? Is history more important than the present? I believe there was a quote, maybe from Tokien, which said something about the folly of being more proud of who your ancestors were than who your children are. Some countries are willing to trade the freedom and safety of their children to preserve the memory of their ancestors. France did it in the early 20th, and they are apparently willing to do it again today. I, personally, don't have much respect for this type of elitist cowardice. If the destruction of a pottery battery will save a couple hundred Iraqi civilians from being detained, thrown in jail, and tortured, it's worth it.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Some would say it's not.
and those people we would call weak-willed moral relativists.
If it's important enough to start a war (or, more precisely, continue a war, since Iraq is violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war), then an ancient artifact is certainly acceptable collateral damage.
You may disagree wether or not we should invade Iraq, but the decision is not made lightly. The importance of an (already studied) artifact is irrelevant in comparison.
Moreover, It takes courage to advocate and perform an unpleasent but neccessary action. It takes none at all to come out in favor of puppies and kittens, children playing in the sun, and M-16 barrels being used to hold flowers.
Guess what? Bush, Rumsfield, Powell, and Blair value those things to. But these things will not happen in Iraq, or the middle east, by simply wishing them into existence.
Unless, of course, you believe that Saddam only poses a threat to his own people, so why should we care?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
To everyone who thinks the wars is all about oil--it is, to France. FRANCE HAS HUGE OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ. Do you need me to repeat that? I said FRANCE HAS HUGE OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ. In fact, you might say that their opposition to the war is solely due them potentially losing $Billions in oil investments. Of course they would have you believe otherwise, and it isn't being widely reporting, since the media is anti-war. But check it out--it's true.
Besides, if the US really wanted Iraqi oil for cheap, they could just lift the trade embargos. Much, much simpler, a lot less costly, and bloodless.
This "it's all about oil" argument is a complete liberal cop-out. They can't come up with a real argument so they say it's all about oil. Equivalent to name-calling.
Similarily, when the Taleban was destroying ancient Buddha's should this have been a reason to invade all by itself?
I hate how every news article has to somehow relate to the cause of the day ...
correct me if i am wrong but it wasnt until the 1700's that humans discovered electricity and began trying to control it and use it.
You are wrong, that's the whole point of the artifact.
Humans had discovered electricity long before, but the knowledge was lost and took thousands of years to be discovered again. They obviously never pushed the tech as far as its been in recent centuries (it took many a genious to get us where we are now), but they had the basis for it...and it somehow got lost.
Now, if archeologist were allowed to dig up a bit more without Dubya bombing everything into oblivion, maybe we would learn much more about how advance early civilisations got.
BTW, your comment reeks of occident-centricism (just made that word up). The way you just assume that nobody could have thought of making a battery before Mr Volta...disgusting. Oh, and I guess aliens had to help the mayas build pyramids huh? 'cause those brown skinned savages could never be that smart...
Sigh
You can't take the sky from me...
Or these very same people, who care nothing for their own culture or heritage except to prop up dictators and make them look like liberators and heroes of the poeple, could very well do the same thing the Taliban did in Afghanistan. Even in Egypt, ancient temples were built upon by contemporary Egyptians with little care for the past. The Temple of Karnak has a modern mosque about 40 above it because they built the mosque on some ruins without first excavating the site. Abu Simbel would have been lost for all time had it not been for the efforts of the US. Now that Egypt is a more open and democratic society, archeologusts can, and have, move in and begin to resurrect the past and share it with the world.
Invading, during which time the facilities will most likely be destroyed, plus the cost of war and the problems it will generate in the world oil market will drive oil costs up for a long time. And that is without the additional affects of a possible Arab oil embargo to protest the war.
So, in conclusion, the war is not a good way to get the oil. Presumably, an oil man would know that. Why then, is he still pushing for war? Maybe because it's not about the oil?
To argue that a war should or should not be fought based on possible damage to historic artifacts is foolish. While such damage is a tragedy, it is nothing to the loss of human life. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the life of the night watchman at an archeological site than all the artifacts buried there.
You can argue whether war with Iraq is justified, whether it will (or will not) in the long run save more lives than it will take. You can argue about the U.S. motives for the war or any of a thousand other things, but the decision to go to war or not should have nothing to do with a people's historic contributions or lack thereof. While the preservation of artifacts should enter the discussion about how to prosecute a war (i.e. don't intentionally shell that museum), it is today's people that should be the concern - Iraqis, their neighbors, and the rest of the world community.
Everything else - ancient batteries or modern oilfields - they're just things.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Yeah, the US is a great role model for the world in how to deal with your history and native peoples.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
A "region" doesn't have a culture. A civilization has a culture, and when the population changes (as in this case), the culture is either adopted, modified or replaced entirely.
Or would you claim that the city of Washington, DC has elements of American Indian culture because those peoples once lived there before being displaced?
Absurd.
I think you mean:
George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan and Kuwait!"
Government IS the problem.
No, no I'm pretty sure he means:
d =6 55&e=1&cid=655&u=/oneworld/20030227/wl_oneworld/10 32_1046349026
George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to all the countries in the world that we are bullying/bribing into supporting this war by either threatening veto's on attempts to get into NATO and withholding foreign aid or paying out ungodly amounts of bribe money!"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&nci
I agree partly with the statement that human life is allways more important BUT, iraq is somehow of the mother of all archeologicall sites....
My friend, most of the bible's stories has iraq as a background. Not only writing, but navigation, maps, law.... a large host of things where made in the area.
So lets gravitate to the middle, we can agree that war is allways a pitifull, incredibly animal and uncivilized thing.
We can agree that human life is more important than any piece of clay.
We can agree that iraq is one of the most important and amazing sites. The origin of western civilization.
So now, should america nuke it?
So now, should iraq nuke anyone else?
So now, should israel nuke iraq?
Is any of this justified over some oil, saddam's manhood (or lack thereoff), religious and nationalistic (practically fascist) arab feelings?
No, No No No.... im tired of all... im tired of germanies, france, russia hipocresy (they have allways been ruthless with their colonies, murderers as any powerfull nation).
Im tired of the US allways protecting the interest of the incredebly pitifull american "culture". Fucking bunch of barbarians that, come on, drool over fucking pecan pie or big-macs (that says a lot about a country).
Im tired of the damned arabs with their cocky attitude, thinking the truth is what they hold when mostly they arent even refering to the profets words, but to their own bloody local traditions (look up what the q'ran of omar says, versus to what the rest of the books say....the qran is pretty peacefull, the rest of the stories are bloody shows of animality and disgrace).
Humanity is inexistant, we are all sick, noone has the moral pull to convince anyone. All have ulterior motives, and yet, they will decide....i just hope an asteroid fucks us up before we do.
And there..... we are back to where we started.
NO SIG
It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.
That the American public is completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Iraq and with their own government's history of creating instablity in the region is quite shocking. I think it's the reason why Americans swallow whole the misinformation and outright lies spoon fed to them by their media and politicians.
After WWII and continuing today, the UN mandates the teaching of the Nazi era to all German school children at all levels, in an attempt to ensure that Germans cannot hide from the legacy of the last world conflict.
I think that a similar UN mandate is warranted here. The uninformed/misinformed American public are creating real difficulties for the world by supporting extremist politicians in their government. I would like to see the U.N. step in and make an effort to teach American school children some basic facts about life outside the U.S. and the long history of America's damage to the wider world. Such an effort might go a long way towards helping Americans learn to behave in a civilised manner both as individuals and as a society.
American media (which we see here in Britain) is absolutely shocking. The only examples of blatant propaganda that come even close to it are Stalinst-era Soviet broadcasts and the works of Goebels in Nazi Germany.
It would be too much to ask that the power structures behind the American media begin to show Americans the truth, but perhaps with a U.N. education effort for young Americans they will become less susceptible to the lies that they are force-fed and gleefully regurgitate here in such a repugnantly belligerent manner.
I agree. The risks of potentially hurting the gutenberg press were much higher than freeing millions under naziism. We should have stayed in bed, or just rolled over like the french.
Um, I think you got the veto part wrong - France is the one threatening to veto eastern europe since they are supporting the US.
But what the hell - the eastern european countries just came out of 50 years of brutal, oppressive regimes, what do they know about life under a vicious dictatorship? Of course France knows better... Or at least, France knows it doesn't want to lose several billion in oil contracts.
Oops.
...simply more leftist selective memory.
The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq. Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.
Why lie if you don't need to? Do you need to? It really is starting to look that way.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I would expect nothing more than a story like this from the bbc, they are known for their liberal reporting. I wouldnt be suprised if they came out and said saddamn hussein himself shits out gold nuggets.
If the so-called battery is destroyed, who is to blame? I say the ones who caused the war. And that would be . . . . . SADDAM!
They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil.
Wrong. This is the fastest way to reduce oil prices somewhat. It does nothing to gain control of the oil, which is the point that the "no war for oil" people are trying to get across.
The head of the INC, who hasn't been in Iraq since 1956, is already talking with US oil companies for access to the oil fields after the war. Cheney and Bush are oil barons. If the price of oil goes up, their friends and families benefit, since most people will pay through the nose anyway. If the price drops after the war, even better; the oil families will still rake in the cash, and the OPEC dictatorships will see their own economic base weakened by a drop in prices. Either way, the situation is win-win for certain powerful people and organizations. Western life is tied to oil as a common, essential resource. It is the source of our fuel and some of our most common materials.
Oil may not be the only factor, but it is a factor. However, to believe that anyone currently running the show in Washington is seriously concerned about the lives of Iraqis is pure naivete. Quite a few of the people currently in power helped support Saddam's war machine during the Iran-Iraq war, looked the other way while both sides used chemical weapons, didn't make a noise about his development of chemical and biological weapons (may have quietly helped, in fact) and didn't give a rat's patoot about the megalomaniac until he invaded the wrong country. Invading Iran was fine. It's not enough to say Bush I wasn't president for the Iran-Iraq war and thus Saddam's actions then weren't his problem, as he was vice-president during that period.
One only need look at that infamous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand to know where freedom and human rights rank compared to political expediency in the minds of the cabal currently running the US.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq.
Who is it 'partnered' (no idea what you mean with this) with now as it continues to spew arms all over the place including Saudi Arabia (another oppressive regime) and the rest of the countries it is bribing with arms into joining the coalition of the coerced?
Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.
How about the Anthrax and Botulism that it has given to Iraq in the past? How about all of the F-16's and the attack helicopters and all of the other weapons of mass destruction it has given to all kinds of countries? What exactly do you require as proof?
It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.
What is truely bizarre is that you manage to write so much, but give no examples of this propaganda. While I agree with you that the American media has a tendancy not to question statements by American leadership, this post is another example of ignorance (and arrogance?) toward American media and Americans in general.
The real tragedy here is that many Europeans truely believe that America is a country filled with mindless drones who believe everything they read and that everything they read is a lie. This is simply not true.
Many Americans have differing beliefs, and many (american) media outlets do reflect this heterogenecity. Examples include the 100,000+ people that marched in San Francisco against military action in Iraq. Or last night, Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. Do you think the Bush administration wanted that aired? Many newspapers have written in editorial pages reservations about the Bush administration stance. Ignorance is everywhere, and perhaps that smell is coming from your own back yard and not your short wave radio...
-Sean
And when is the last time the US made any sort of sacrifice for the UN?
Arn't we kin do fhypocrits to wipe our ass with every treaty that the UN or anyone asks us to sign, and then to point our finger at Iraq and say they arn't playing fair?
The Bush administration said that the Iraq issue will "test the relevance of the UN". Personally, I think the kyoto protocol already did that. The US decided YEARS ago that the UN wasn't really relevant and was to be used as nothing more than a vehicle to push OUR agenda on the rest of the world.
Besides...look at the region. Can you honestly say that a person ruling a country in that region can be considered a competent ruler AND NOT have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs?
Just look at who they boarder and then tell me they shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. Fuck, if I were in Saddam's shoes I would too!
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Gee, haven't you heard? Big Oil was pushing that the sanctions be lifted from Iraq so that they could get their hands on the oil. A war in Iraq will make its oil supply unavailable for quite a long time to US Oil Companies. The one thing that Oil companies don't want is unrest in a country they are doing business with. A country under a command and control dictatorship (like Saddam Hussein's) is much more stable and much better to keep oil flowing for Big Oil. The only reason that "Big Oil" might want Saddam Hussein toppled is because they are afriad that he will get his hands on nuclear weapons and start invading his neighbors again. Once Saddam gets nuclear weapons, he will not be easily contained anymore. Yes, France suffered through a very brutal war. Of course, the US did not suffer at all during the World Wars liberating France. It is precisely because of the enormity of the Second world war why we should invade Iraq. Before the Second World War, Britain and France appeased Hitler and Nazi Germanys productions of weapons and land grabs. Because they did not prevent Germany from following the restrictions which they agreed to, Germany became extremely dangerous, and millions of people died. The same thing is happening with Iraq. What does it say about the international community if we allow a brutal dictator to violate the terms of a cease-fire treaty and build terrible weapons? It shows that we are taking the route of PM Chamberlain. If we want "Peace For Our Time" we must not be deathly afraid of using our military to create peace.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
*laf* I knew it. We wouldn't be in this mess now if Clintion was sticking cigars in places where cigars should never go.
If he wasn't worried about getting his dick sucked by every bitch in the White House, maybe he would have responded with a real retaliation to the FIRST WTC bombing.
His liberation of Kosovo was way too late and many lives were lost because of his lack of a backbone, among other things
And yes, it's a preemtive strike. Are you so blind that you can't see that we are AT WAR right now? Perhaps we need the golden gate bridge to be brought down before you realize that it's time for action, not talk.
Back to an earlier point, of Clinton didn't decimate the CIA, maybe we would have had SOME decent intelligence in place.. ARgh, I can go on and on.
Yes YES YES it's about putting our sphere of influence around Iraq. The radical Muslim "units" that live and breed in these nations must be aware that we are there and we will not stand for another attack.
Iraq is just a stepping stone.
The reason why everyone isn't going apesh*t over N korea is because we have the backing of China. China's economy is directly related to trade with the US. Any compromise in that will be squashed by the big Red. Bush and his team know that N Korea would have a huge world of pain if they tried any shit.
And lastly, what pisses me off is not being anti-war but being anti-american. You probably don't even realize it.. most Democrats don't.
Live web cams
The reason we are doing this now is because when he violated the cease fire he signed (1992?) in 1998 clinton did nothing about it. Youre right now makes little sense but it makes more than in 5 more years it would have been right to do this 5 years ago. In 1998 when Iraq kicked out inspectors Clinton dropped a few bombs on them, looked good for him and he did not have to really commit to doing anything. In 1998 I did not see outrage we were bombing Iraq becuase in the minds of many Clinton is not an 'evil republican' so his motives must be true. The truth is we have more proof of WMD in Iraq than we had of mass graves in Kosovo...
And look at Afghanistan. All these months after our liberation there and have we really done that much good? Warlords are still running amock; the only place they don't have any real power is Kabul. Are we really interested in helping the oppressed of the world or are we just so blindingly scared of terrorism that we're willing to lash out at the first country the President looks at funny?
It will be a long process to reunite that country, but the taliban did support a man and shelter a man who plots every day to kill people. In addition to this you could be killed if youre a woman and too much of your face is showing. I just hope we do right by them and stay there long enough for a govt to hold (be it a monarcy, a tribal republic, or whatever)..
no joke or sarcasm meant, but there are not any enemies out there like that for America anymore...
and if that war that sent home 3 out of four soldiers dead or missing limbs was for a good reason (such as ousting an insane criminal from running a whole country) America would probably gladly do it...at least this American would...
but then, I just can't get enough blood (:
And America took place in that particular military action in 1914...something a lot of countries overseas for some reason seem to have forgotten. Just because it wasn't on our soil doesn't mean we didn't die to help out the cause.
Mod me down tho, because I actually do believe this potential war in Iraq is for humanitarian reasons, not for oil...remember, if it was for oil, we would of taken it in 1991. (:
Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
What about this pot ?
WOW a 2200 year old battery !!!
I wanna know more !
I request everyone not specifically talking about the foreverready batter be modded to -1. That way I can find the useful information about this fascinating pot
The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery ...
... how this priceless artifact as well as many others...
... threatened by the impending war.
This are is undoughtedly a hoax or a fake, If it was a battery it would show signs of electrolysis not corrosion, it does not it is also rather pointless without something to apply the power to, a light, motor, a transistor radio. It is probably an early 20th Century hoax or propaganda aimed at the appeasenicks and is to be expected from Saddam really.
However you don't expect this type of sloppyness from the BBC. The article makes the automatic assumption that the West will be bombing museums, and by implication, schools hospitals etc. This is just plainly absurd. The BBC seem to have dropped their usual impartiality and integrity on this whole issue and adopted a pro-appeasenick position.