Baghdad battery dating Online video chat without registration
The artifact had been exposed to the weather and had suffered corrosion, although mild given the presence of an electrochemical couple.This has led some scholars to believe lemon juice, grape juice, or vinegar was used as an acidic agent to jumpstart the electrochemical reaction with the two metals. John Simpson of the Near Eastern department of the British Museum, their original excavation and context were not well recorded (see stratigraphy), so evidence for this date range is very weak.While archaeology may not seem like the most exciting profession in the world, it certainly has its moments.Of course, you won’t be excavating mummies everyday but on occasion you may find yourself face to face with some fairly intense artifacts.Further, there are many difficulties with the interpretation of these artifacts as galvanic cells: Some observe that the artifacts strongly resemble another type of object with a known purpose namely, storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris.Those vessels do not have the outermost clay jar, but are otherwise almost identical.However even if it is accepted that the "Baghdad batteries" were in fact electrical devices, this provides no evidence of any real knowledge of electrical phenomena.
The Discovery Channel program Myth Busters determined that it was indeed plausible for ancient peoples to have used the Baghdad Battery for electroplating or electrostimulation.However, the batteries which they reproduced did not produce a substantial amount of energy and had to be connected in series in order to test the myths.Skeptical archaeologists see the electrical experiments as embodying a key problem with experimental archaeology; such experiments can only show that something was physically possible, they say nothing about whether it actually occurred.Knig thought the objects might be Parthian (between 250 BC and 224 AD) because the village where they were excavated was Parthian. Furthermore, the style of the pottery (see typology) is Sassanid (224-640), so they are probably much more recent than Knig thought.Most of the components of the objects are not particularly amenable to advanced dating methods.