- 最后登录
- 2006-2-4
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 25
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2004-9-12
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 9
- UID
- 178272
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 25
- 注册时间
- 2004-9-12
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
37Woven 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 unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a " Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.
<-->
In this argument, based on the discovery of a "Palean" basket in Lithos, the arguer claims that the Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. In this analysis, the author exhibits the two places' speration by a river and the necessity to use a boat to cross, which is lack of evidence. In addition, the arguer suggests no need for Palean to cross the river because of the abundant resources around them. At the first glance, this argument seems reasonable; however a careful examination will reveal some logical flaws in it.
To begin with, the arguer overemphasizes the difficulty to cross the Brim River. The arguer fails to present any evidence that the river was as broad and deep in ancient time as today. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that natural geographic environment changes tremendously as time passes. The river might be a small stream in the past, or there was no river at all. In this case, one could easily cross the river by swimming or even wading.
Secondly, the arguer denies the ability for Paleans to cross the river. Neither lack of evidence for boats in Palea nor the late appearance of large-capacity boat can exclude other transport forms acrossed the river. It is entirely possible for the Palean to use a canoe or a raft, both of which are difficult to be reserved over a long history to develop into remain evidence. Besides, through a myriad of other means, the Palean could shun the river by other approaches.
Thirdly, the natural abundance around Palea can not guarantee the Paleans had not crossed the river. The Palean might have to travel across the river to collect special but necessary foods other than those could be found in their area. Moreover, the arguer does not take into account marriages, trade activities or other social affairs between Lithos and Palea.
Last but not least, the arguer fails to rule out other possibilities of spreading of the Palean basket. It is very likely for some later people to take the basket from Palea to other places. Also, it is equally possible that the Lithos people could reach to Palea to collect and take back some baskets.
To sum up, the arguer's assumption that Paleans did not have boats and thus could not cross the river is totally unwarranted. Meanwhile, adequate and persuasive information should be provided to exclude any human activities across the river as well as the possible ways of distributing the baskets. Otherwise, the argument is not logical convincing as it stands.
[ Last edited by timminn on 2005-7-18 at 21:53 ] |
|