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."
It's not a battery! It's a chemical weapon! Call Hans Blix!
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.
was the big stone-carved vibrator that went with it...
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Subsequently, the defense department has changed Homeland Security status to Condition Copper, indicating a potentially shocking situation.
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
...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
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.
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
No. Electricity was first described by ThalesofMiletus around 600 BCE. He polished amber with fur, to produce static electricity, and this is where we get the word 'electricity' from, from the greek word for Amber.
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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
Will they happen by selling Harpoon missiles and anthrax bacteria to Saddam Hussein, like Rumsfeld did when he was Reagan's special envoy to the middle east?
In fact, I'd always considered it a sign of great personal strength, this desire to peacefully resolve conflicts even if it included the risk of grave personal harm.
When "personal harm" extends to millions of people, the logic changes just a bit. We're not on the playground anymore.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
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!
And while you're at it, tell me why Sadam needs to be off the country, if not for US control of oil. US don't need oil from Iraq, they get most of theirs from Venezuela and Kuwait (you didn't believe the USA helped kuwait out of good will back in '91, do you?). It's not about getting oil, it's about CONTROLLING oil.
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
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
You did stay in bed. America joined the war after Pearl Harbour, remember.
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
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