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 conclude that Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean, because author claim that Palean basket is found in Lithos village, which is across a very deep and broad Brim River and no Paleno boat has been found. Hence, it is not made by only Paleno people. This argument is unconvincing for several rationales; it is based on author's assumptions and limited archaeological data.

First of all, Author claim that Woven basket made by Palean people in unique pattern is only made by Palean people is questionable assumption. As it is found in the vicinity of the Palea village, it is very likely that people residing in near by villages or town would have learned to make such pattern baskets. If it holds true, it male Palean basket, uniquely Palean. On the contrary , it can be made by some specific clan in the Palea village, if it so, it restricted author to claim that it is mad by "Palean people" as whole. Author's use of word believe overrates his claim without any further research data such as how many type of clan were involved in basket making profession, populace of village was depended on basket earning solely/ basket making was the sole profession of Palean people or basket was made in Palea village only and not in vicinity as well. Without any explanation on this, it cannot be said that Palean basket was unique to palean people or not.

Secondly, author uses archeological discovery that Weaven baskets were found on Litho village, which was across a very deep and long Brim River. And no Palean boat being found their proves that basket is also made by people from Litho village. Author does not provide any detail of Litho people boat not found in Palea vilage. Because if author assume baskets are also made by Litho people, he must have justified it by presenting some details such as Litho people have not travelled to Palea village and learnt the art of weaving basket or no one from Palea village migrated with them to Litho vilage and started the basket weaving and selling profession. If any of before mention claims are true it raises doubt that Litho people did not learn art of Weaving specific pattern baskets from Palea people. If that holds true authors claim deniable.

Thirdly, If no Palean boat have been found, it might have been destroyed or depilated after reaching to Lithos village. And if they would have reached Lithos village and would have spread their art of weaving in Litho People. Surely, some tools to weave baskets had used by them. Author doesn’t provide any other details pertinent to basket weaving, he has missed considering substantial details such as tools or some material used by Palea people are also not found and tools or material used by Litho people are also same to the paraphernalia used by Palea people. Therefore, authors claims lack very helpful detail to concur with author's claim.

The argument makes number of unstated assumption and failed to provide sufficient data that seriously undermine its validity. Unless these assumption are addresses the argument falls apart. Author would have proven his point by providing data that no other artifact and tools pertinent to basket making were found in Litho and Palea village to analyze his claim, data on specific clans was not involved in similar pattern basket making but entire palean population was involved in the same profession, some details regarding Litho people did not travelled to Palean and learned the art of weaving basket from Palean would have helped him in making his claim acceptable.