Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa

The writer of the argument concludes that the so-called baskets were not uniquely Palean. However, this conclusion is not persuasive as it stands since it is based on a number of premises for the support of which there is not enough evidence.

To begin with, the editorial’s author, in order to draw such an unconvincing conclusion, must assume that the described baskets found only in the vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea were only manufactured by Palean people. Nevertheless, the author fails to offer any concrete evidence for the support of this crucial assumption. Perhaps, the baskets were made by other people living near that village and were sold to Palean people. We need to know whether any other nearby villages was trading with Palean people. For that matter, it is entirely possible that the baskets were supplied form other villages, in which event the author’s conclusion would lack any merit whatsoever.

Besides, the conclusion relies on another threshold assumption that things have remained unchanged with time. In fact, the writer of the argument draws a strong conclusion for a fact in the past based on a recent observation on the discovered basket. However, absent evidence that this is the case, it is equally possible that Palean people were the manufacturer of the baskets, and after a few years, people of Lithos learnt the technology and techniques to make the mentioned baskets from Palean people and started to produce them. Or maybe, people of both villages were making the baskets at the same time; yet the baskets were only found in the village of Palea due to some improbable concatenation of circumstances. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast doubt on the author’s conclusion.

Even assuming that there are evidences to support the previous flaws, the conclusion rests on another unsubstantiated assumption that the Palean people could not cross the Brim River since no Palean boats have been found. As far as I am concerned, one cannot conclude that Palean people could not cross the river based on the mere fact no one managed to find a Palean boat since then. Absent such evidence, it is entirely possible that the Palean people had boats; yet, no ships were survived to act as clue. Or maybe, no ships were found due to shortcomings and negligence of archeologists in their search. No one can refute the undeniable fact that a Palean ship, some day in the future, might be found, in which event the author’ conclusion would be unwarranted. In short, unless the author substantiates this critical assumption, I cannot accept the conclusion.

In conclusion, to persuade me that the so-called baskets were not uniquely Palean, the editorial’s writer must supply clear evidence that the baskets were not supplied from other villages nearby. The writer must also provide evidence that none of the above-mentioned scenarios weakening the conclusion were possible.