(Please read from the start)
If anons think it’s farfetched for electricity to exist and be known to old civilizations, including an ancient civilization that precedes our times; then maybe what is known as the Baghdad battery is enough proof to convince them that electricity was known in old times. I didn’t mention this one before because it wasn’t Sumerian or Akkadian, but came from a much much later time.
It’s considered as an out-of-place-Artifact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact
“Baghdad Battery: A ceramic vase, a copper tube, and an iron rod made in Parthian or Sassanid Persia. Fringe theorists have hypothesized that it may have been used as a galvanic cell for electroplating, though no electroplated artifacts from this era have been found.[10][11] The "battery" strongly resembles another type of object with a known purpose – storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris.”
>> Oh this is new one: “storage vessels for sacred scrolls”. Really?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery
“The Baghdad Battery or Parthian Battery is a set of three artifacts which were found together: a ceramic pot, a tube of copper, and a rod of iron. It was discovered in modern Khujut Rabu, Iraq, close to the metropolis of Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthian (150 BC – 223 AD) and Sasanian (224–650 AD) empires of Persia, and it is believed to date from either of these periods.
Its origin and purpose remain unclear. It was hypothesized by some researchers that the object functioned as a galvanic cell, possibly used for electroplating, or some kind of electrotherapy, but there is no electroplated object known from this period. An alternative explanation is that it functioned as a storage vessel for sacred scrolls.”
“Physical description and dating
The artifacts consist of a terracotta pot approximately 130 mm (5 in) tall (with a one-and-a-half-inch mouth) containing a cylinder made of a rolled copper sheet, which houses a single iron rod. At the top, the iron rod is isolated from the copper by bitumen, with plugs or stoppers, and both rod and cylinder fit snugly inside the opening of the jar. The copper cylinder is not watertight, so if the jar were filled with a liquid, this would surround the iron rod as well. The artifact had been exposed to the weather and had suffered corrosion.
German archeologist Wilhelm König thought the objects might date to the Parthian period, between 250 BC and AD 224. However, according to St John Simpson of the Near Eastern department of the British Museum, their original excavation and context were not well-recorded, and evidence for this date range is very weak. Furthermore, the style of the pottery is Sassanid (224-640).”
>>Incredible how “their original excavation and context were not well-recorded, and evidence for this date range is very weak”! How many times did we see “not well recorded” excuses presented for important and critical artifacts? Anyone believe this?
-
Page 190 –