Tpo 25 integrated task

The lecture supports the claims of the archaeologist that, a set of clay jars that have been excavated, were the ancient electric batteries and says that the arguments mention in the reading is not convincing. However, the reading claims that it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times and provides three reasons for the claim.

First, the author posits that if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wires but there is no evidence of any kind of metal wires from the location. On the other hand, the professor cast doubt on the point by stating that the excavation was done by the locals not by the trained archaeologist, the locals might had found it but they didn’t recognize as the important things and thrown it away.

Another point mentions in the reading is that the copper cylinder inside the jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, which were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts. While the professor opposes the point by saying that, it’s true that the cylinder was the similar to the Seleucia but doesn’t prove anything. The vessel might originally invent for holding scrolls and then they learnt that it produces electricity. It is possible that one thing invented for the one purpose might use for the other purposes.

Third, the article asks one question that what could ancient people have done with the electricity that the vessels were supposed to have generated?. However, the lecture answers that the battery produces mild shock that is enough to show magical tricks to other people. Additionally, as the modern people use the mild shock to cure mild muscular pain, they might use it for the same medicinal purposes.