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 author has questioned the origin of a certain basket, based upon an archeological discovery. However, there are a few aspects we need to examine, in order to determine the argument’s weaknesses and possible evidence that he could have provided to strengthen his arguments.

He starts off by referring to an earlier belief that the baskets “were believed to have been made only by the Palean people”, yet it seems he or in that case anyone hadn’t went through the alternative beliefs to this belief. My only point is that if some alternative references that link the origin of these baskets to somewhere else, do exist, reviewing and mentioning them would greatly strengthen the author’s argument.

The author next goes off stating “archaeologists discovered such “Palean” basket….”. Were they exactly the same as the original Palean basket? We don’t know and that’s exactly where the lack of evidence starts to take a toll on the argument. Did the archaeologists mention that these baskets were exactly the same as the original ones? And even if they did or based on whatever evidence the author has drawn the conclusion of similarity of the baskets from, the author should provide us with the proof. Let’s say some pictures comparing the two baskets do exist. Illustration of these pictures would greatly strengthen author’s argument. Also we need to look at an alternative explanation here. Even if the baskets were exactly the same, it wouldn’t justify their origin completely. The baskets could be from another city in the first place and transferred to Palea and Lithos through trade. It is also possible that distinctive feature of the basket was accidently created by a genius in Lithos. After all, only ONE “such” basket has been found.

The next statement which puts the reader in wonder is “….the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat”. Is there a proof that negates the explanation of alternative routes to Lithos, crossing the river when its frozen or transfer of the basket through floods? If yes, providing them would greatly strengthen author’s argument. If no, the author is in trouble.

Next he mentions “…no Palean boats have been found”. He hasn’t mentioned by whom and when. He hasn’t mentioned the grounds for that statement at all. If it is in literature, he needs to give references in order to give weight to this point. He also needs to give proof that no Lithos boats were found either because it is possible that Lithos boats transferred the baskets back to Lithos. This point also lacks conviction because its possible that the boats were destroyed gradually. Afterall, they could have been jus wood rafts that could easily ensemble into its individual parts!

The author has tried to create an argument which lacks evidence and strength. If he added just these, it could have easily won the reader’s heart and mind!