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 put forth concludes, that the baskets found in Lithos village are not uniquely Palean. It does so citing a series of evidences that purportedly point towards the above conclusion. However, the evidence cited is sometimes vague or unsubstantiated. Let’s take a deeper look.

Firstly, the statement points to the fact that there are particular distinct patterns that help us uniquely identify the Palean woven baskets. However, the arguments fails to point out - how can one objectively identify these baskets. The term "unique" in itself fails to provide details into how easy or difficult is it to identify these woven baskets from the other baskets found in vicinity of Palean village. It may be the case that archaeologists may be mistaking Lithos' baskets for Palean because of yet unidentified differences between the baskets of these different villages. Author needs to cite these unique attributes of Palean baskets and needs to prove that they are in fact unique.

Secondly, the Palean woven baskets although unique, seem to be only found in the vicinity of Palea. But the author doesn't quantify as to what qualifies as "vicinity of Palea". The primary question that needs to be answered is if the vicinity means surrounding areas or areas much further than Lithos. It may have well been the case that the Palean baskets had spread well beyond the current definition of vicinity.

Thirdly, just because an aritfact is only found in the vicinty of Palea, doesn't necessarily mean that the artifact was unique to Palea. It may well be the case that similar baskets that have well been spread across the region including across the Brim river, have just not been unearthed yet. This has been seen throughout history. Such spread of baskets could have been because of trade network of the times. Hence, it may be premature to call these woven baskets as uniquely Palean. We need evidence that whole vicinity of Palea has been thoroughly researched and checked for signs of these woven baskets.

Fourthly, the river Brim is deemed very deep and broad by the author of the statement. But because the river is deep and broad now, doesn't mean that the river was so throughout the history. Maybe there was a drought during the times Palea was in existence, and hence, it must been easily possible to cross the river. Also, author is rather vague in his/her definition of deep and broad. Is the river, deep for a normal human being who averages 5.5' or was it deep with respect to Palean people in particular? It could well have been the case that Palean people were characteristically tall and were adept swimmers compared to us!

Fifthly, just because no Palean boats have been found doesn't mean there were none in existence during Palean times. The boats of the time may have been built of material that was easily degradable by nature or destroyed through time by wars etc. Hence, author needs to substantiate on how his claims about non-existence of boat as a means of transportation across the then extant Brim river. It may be that boat harbor for Palean village was not where the researchers were looking for them. Hence an extensive geological survey needs to be done, before coming to conclusion of non-existence of these boats.

Sixthly, it could also be the case that the Brim river could be crossed using bridges at the time. A bridge that now doesn't exist or that the researchers haven't looked for signs of it. Hence, the Brim river was indeed cross-able and that it could have been used for trading the woven baskets.

In light of above gaps in argument, the conclusion that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean is rather suspect. And one that needs a lot of further substantiations if such a claim needs to be made.