The Unexplained Mysteries of the Baghdad Battery

Its simply a pot or bucket that contains metal, and if it’s filled up with acid or akali, a chemical reaction takes place which creates electricity.

In 1936, archaeologists discovered a strange object while excavating the ruins of a 2,000 year old village around Baghdad.

At first glance, the object appeared to be a clay pot. But when a German archaeologist named Wilheim Konig took a good look at it, he concluded that it was actually an ancient electric battery! It sounds strange, doesn’t it? But upon close study, it doesn’t appear that there’s much to it.



Its simply a pot or bucket that contains metal, and if it’s filled up with acid or akali, a chemical reaction takes place which creates electricity. It is no more or less the first “modern battery”, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything out of the ordinary, nor does it mean the ancients were even USING it as a battery. How could they have? Ancient civilizations didn’t even know what batteries were, right?

There are some who do believe that it was something special though, and that modern mainstream science isn’t looking into it as much as they should be. They believe that ANY type of battery—including a simple one, dating back to 250 B.C. is evidence of something extraordinary. The only explanations could be that either aliens walked this Earth thousands of years ago, or that ancient civilizations were much more advanced than we now give them credit for.

Konig himself speculated that the Baghdad battery could have been used for electroplating gold onto silver objects. Of course there’s no real evidence for this, and most modern mainstream scientists are skeptical toward that idea. They don’t see any reason(s) to believe that the Baghdad battery had any electrical use, and that its existence may have been for more simple purposes such as storing important papryus scrolls. If this is true, the scrolls would have obviously rotted away since then, leaving behind a bit of acidic residue. This explanation is more likely than most others---and while there are many “archaeological anomalies” from the past, this one doesn’t appear to be one of them.