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."
Read some history. Iraq is not populated today by the same peoples that invented this device or "discovered the wheel" as you say thousands of years ago. The Islamic faith and the migrations of Arabic peoples into historically Persian regions over time has erased the cultural legacy of these peoples you refer to.
So we either (possibly) lose some priceless artifacts, or we lose priceless lives when the next terrorist strike comes.
I know which one is more important. Do you?
...when he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and his soldiers ransacked the museums:
r aq 1/000801a.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/i
Tom
The Army reading list
And the Greeks kept electric eels in big wading pools and would walk into the water and get zapped. It doesn't mean they knew what electricity was; they just knew it felt cool to get a mild shock.
I don't see how they can assume these are batteries when there is no evidence of wires or mechanical devices that would use the electricity.
A few months ago I saw something on the Discovery Channel talking about all of this. They found similar things (bowls/pots with acid in them) in South America too. They said all of these most likely were for magical purposes (cool shock or possibly even coating/electro-plating jewelry), but not batteries.
Karma: NaN
Innovative.
Here everyone was wringing their hands at the potential for Saddam Hussein to use Iraqi civilians as "human shields" in the event of U.S. attack.
Now we're moving on to "archeological shields", as if prospect of humans casualities weren't enough.
[I'd say the U.S. mistimed its Afghanistan venture, though, since the Taliban had enough time to actively seek out and destroy that giant Buddha relic.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
To say oh we cant go to war because there might be some artifacts that will be destroyed by it. Is pritty lame reasioning because these artificats have been around durring a lot more war then we will go thew in our lives. That area of the world is basicly War Central and has been sience before these artificats were created. So if dont go to war what will stop these people from testing their weapons and distroying these artifacts themselfs when testing their own armament. Or just by digging holes to hide there ileagal stuff.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yes.
It is interesting to see what the archeologists have dug up next. We are all curious about what happened in ancient times past. It would be regretful to lose parts of the story.
But we should never place the ancient over the present. They are not going to discover anything of real value to us now. Certainly nothing more valuable than the lives of thousands of people living in the present.
...
Here: http://www.policyreview.org/summer93/cheney.html
Excerpting:
Policy Review: It is now two years after the spectacular victory of the United States and its allies in Desert Storm. What objectives were achieved during this war?
Cheney: The best way to evaluate Desert Storm is to consider what the world would be like today if we hadn't fought and won this war. If we had taken a pass on Saddam's occupation of Kuwait, by today he would have the eastern province of Saudi Arabia and would sit astride about 50 percent of the world's oil reserves, which he could control directly when you add up Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Iraqi oil reserves. He'd be able to dominate the rest of the reserves in the Persian Gulf. And he'd have nuclear weapons. We had to stop this from happening. And we did.
--
Notice how the nukes are clearly a secondary consideration.
--
P.R.: You got out of Iraq without going all the way to Baghdad. Are you worried that Saddam Hussein is still in power today?
Cheney: I'd rather he were not in power, but I don't see him at this point as a threat to any of his neighbors. In that part of the world, I'm more concerned about Iran. Saddam is unable to sell oil; without selling oil, he can't generate the revenue he needs to rebuild that military machine we destroyed. The Iranians aren't faced with that situation; they have access to the world's markets, they are selling oil, and they are using some of that revenue to regenerate their forces and expand their capabilities. For example, they're buying diesel-powered submarines and MiG-29s from the Russians.
--
Nah, can't be about the oil.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
and those people we would call weak-willed moral relativists.
Thank you for the name calling.
There are some of us, thank you very much, who oppose the war on ideological grounds. Some of us believe that the function of the U.S. military should be to defend the citizens of the U.S., not to run around the world "installing" democracies. We should lead by example, not by force.
Unless, of course, you believe that Saddam only poses a threat to his own people, so why should we care?
Um, you really think that Saddam poses a threat to the U.S.? I've followed the administration's incredibly weak attempts to convince us that he does, but I still don't see it.
I don't believe for one second that this is primarily about oil, but it certainly isn't about the national security of the U.S.
You're right, it's not *all* about oil.
It's about paranoia, America needing to look tough and "kick ass", Bush needing a war to boost popularity and, at this stage most of all, sending back 100,000 troops without a fight would look like a defeat. Oil is a factor in there too.
You also right in that France and Russia and most other countries aren't against the war for humanitarian reasons. Each one has their little political objectives. However, I think the actual people who marched against war around the world, did it because they don't want to see 1000's of lives lost for a worthless cause.
I thought a 'battery' was a group of 'cells'.
Whoa! Damn! This dude is on to something! Wow, he must watch Fox TV or read Newsweek, those bastions of pacifism and respect for international law!
I am humbled by such an acute insight, such pithy observation. I would never have noticed by merely reading or watching "the media." Thank God Anonymous Coward has opened my eyes to the truth!
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.
... the secret seems to have died with the makers.
That is very interesting in its own right. However,
I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.
They've found at least 12 such primative batteries, so unless they were throwing away a bunch of defecting jars that all mysteriously resembled batteries far more closely than simple storage jugs, I think the idea that they suffered a little accidental corrosion and threw it away is rather unlikely.
Virtually everyone believes these were primitive batteries, and used as such, but not to drive bronze age equivelent walkmans or the like. Rather, some believe it may have been to imbibe idols with magical "shocking" capabilities to lend credence to local religious cults, an invention that occurred likely by accident, reproduced by trial and error, and then applied (secretively) by the priests of Baal (or whatever cult was popular at the time) as a way to convice people of the divinity of their statue.
That they were batteries designed to deliver a low amperage, fairly low voltage electrical current is pretty widely accepted. Why they were made, and what they were used for, is really anybody's guess at this point
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What does this say about intellectual property? If the batteries were used for electroplating (one possibility) people kept them and there principal secret so that they could profit from them. Likewise , Hero's engine also mentioned in the article.
If the principle and functioning of these batteries and the steam engine had been studied and the knowledge shared, as such things were in the 18th and 19th centuries, science and the industrial revolution could have started around 200 BC.
The patent system was meant to encourage such sharing but it seems that it is helping to keep ideas and methods away from the public instead.
Israel ? And what was Donald "lets invade" Rumsfelds job during the 80s... err selling chemicals to Sadam.
We know, beyond any reasonable doubt that the US has helped Israel get WMD, we also know its sold them to Britain as well.
So there are two official cases where it has happened. And officially the US and Britain supplied billions of dollars of arms equipment to Iraq during the Iran v Iraq war.
What else do we know
1) CIA trained Bin Laden and many people in Afghanistan against the USSR, many of these became the Taliban.
2) The US supplied weapons to terrorists in the Iran/Contra scandal.
So yes, apart from these cases and lots more there is no evidence at all to say that the US has potentially the dirtiest hands on the block.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I agree with you. Americans are ignorant about our own US History mainly because of the mediocre High School history books/class.
If you get a chance, read this book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
I remembered reading a while back a theory that the Arc of the Covenant was actually a battery. This (so the article claimed) was the reason that when people touched it they died. It was an interesting theory.
I did my best to find a link to such a writeup, but Google keeps sending me to sites about UFO's. I can't speak for the validity of the site, but here is a mention of the theory. Right down to him referring to the Arc as 'Old Sparky'.
I just think it funny how people assume Bush is a moron, when he always seems to outwit his political opponents. He got the democrats to vote on giving him authority to attack Iraq, and though he has taken fire from the world for being a 'cowboy' he has got inspectors back in Iraq (by forcing the UN), and now Iraq may take apart its missles. Bush has done more on Iraq in 2 years than Clinton did in 8 and he has not fired a shot. I hope a bomb never falls on Iraq, I have a sister in law over there right now and a brother who might have to ship out in the event of a long war, but I agree with them when they say the right, not the easy or popular thing, has to be done.
Right now the Democrats are killing themselves in the senate with regards to Estrada, a philibuster, I welcome the government doing nothing for awhile, keep it up.
Don't be surprised if three generations from now the truth about the ancient battery is uncovered:
it was a mistake made in the future when someone went back to the past. They're probably laughing at us right now in another timeline because we don't get it.