The reading and the lecture are both about a function of an ancient architecture, which is a set of clay jars.

The reading and the lecture are both about a function of an ancient architecture, which is a set of clay jars. The author of the reading believes that considering the jar, not as an electric battery rather than a pot by the ancient people. In contrast to that, the speaker casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He ponders that, the clay jars might be the kind of an electric battery. Initially, the author of the reading points out that, lack of evidence is fundamental not to consider it as a battery. furthermore, It is mentioned that the lack of metal wire plays a great role to posit the statement. Whereas, the orator challenges this point. He tells that, it was excavated by the village people rather than the trained archaeologist. As a result, there is a possibility that it could be thrown or overlooked by them. From this point of view, we can't agree with the penman's statement. After that, the originator of the reading contends that, looks like a copper cylinder. It is mentioned that the Selucia, an ancient society used a holder for sacred texts like it. But the lecturer rebuts on the statements also. He says that putting water on it, there is a possibility that it could be used as a battery. Finally, Although, author of the reading tells us that for not having any devices to use the electricity generated from it, there is no purpose to have it as a battery, the speaker shows that it could be used as magical equipment to the magician as that time only a few were known about it. Beside another vivid example is, it might also be used as a healing medicine of pain through the doctor. So there is an inevitable possibility that it existed as a batter rather than a pot