tpo25

The reading claims that it is not likely that the vessels, which are clay jar contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rode, were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times. It provides three reasons of support. In contrast, the professor states that the arguments in the passage are not convincing and the explanation that these vessels were used as batteries is correct. She refutes each of the author's reasons.

First, the article avers that if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wires but there were not any metal wires near the vessels. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that the vessels were discovered by local people and they may find another materials near the vessels but they couldn't recognize them. In fact, She mentions that these materials may serve as conductores but they were thrown away.

Second, the passage asserts that the copper cylinders inside the jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia and they were used them for holding scrolls of sacred texts so the vessels could be used as the same purpose. On the other hand, the speaker counters this point by stating that this does not approve that the vessels were used as holders. Actually, she argues that the copper originated for that purpose but then the people adapted to use the copper to generate electricity.

Third, the article posits that what could ancient people have done with the electricity that the vessels were supposed to have generated? because they had no devices to use it. Conversely, the lecturer casts doubt on this point by explaining that the batteries shock was generated when somebody touch it and this is invisible power that people used it as magic. In addition, she affirms that they might use this electricity for healing as today because it stimulates muscles to relieve pain, and anceint people may use batteries for the same purpose.