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 argument states that based on the recent archaeological study, Woven baskets which has been found only in village of Palea are also be found in Lithos which situated across the Brim River from the Palea. Because of two evidences: 1. People could only crossed the Brim River by boat due to its width and depth; 2. No beats were discovered in the river, the passage deduced a conclusion that the baskets were not unique in Palea. However, this reasoning should be anatomized thoroughly because there is a lack of several necessary evidences which are highly indispensable for validity of the conclusion. For example, no evidence about the history record of the Brim River has been provided. Also, the proof of existence of the boat should also be offered. And finally, weather the baskets could only carried by Palean or not should also be deeply examined.

The first issue to be addressed is weather there were some other approaches to attain another side of the Brim River from the Palea or not. We could conclude that the assumption the author adopted is that the river course has not changed noticeably, or people have not other way to cross the river. However, that not the case. Several counterexamples could be cited to argue this scenario. For example, in a specific former times, the Brim River was far more narrow and shallow than it is now. Thus people who were living in Palea could easily cross the river. The residents of Palea in the past could also cross the river by round its source possibly. The weather condition in the past should also be considerdered as the main factor for the river crossing: the climate condition in winter was so cold that the Brim River was freezing and solid enough. Consequently, the people could traverse the river directly when the river was freezing.

What’s more, this is nowhere more presumptuous than on the assertion that there must have been no boats at all only because of the lack of evidence of boats. It is universally accepted that boats in the past were always made of the wood and lumbers. Because of this fact, the boat could totally decayed off, thus, people could not find any residues or evidences about the boats. Also, to judge the past existence could not only base on the extent material evidence, many other evidence are also needed to assist the evaluation process. For example, In Ancient China, people could not found the tomb of Cao Cao and claim that the tomb of Cao Cao does not exist at all. But consequently, a documentary study suggested that the tomb of Cao Cao must be exist in another place and people found the tomb of Cao Cao consequently.

Lastly, it is unpersuasive to say that the basket could only be carried by Palean to Lithos at that time according to the study of boat made by Palean residents. Barring Palean people, people from Lithos or other place could also build their own boats and thus carry the basket by themshelves . In particular, the Lithos has a long history of boat building and owned their own boat, so they could carry the basket also. Another possible explanation is that people from other place who lived by tranporting the odds between the Palea and the Lithos carried the basket between two places.

In sum, to support the unquestionably , I highly recommend the author to give the evidence: 1) the former record of course change of the Brim River 2) the shortest distance from the village of Palea to the possible path of the Brim River 3) the history of weather change in the watershed of the Brim River.
Moreover, for the lack of the boat, the historical and documentary record should be provided to buttress the argument. In addition, the evidence about the existence of boats built and owned by other people should also be provided.