[a习作temp] ARGUMENT 33 BY Cherry [复制链接]

cherry_916
UID: 2621641

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 4
寄托币: 164
注册时间: 2009-3-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-20 21:20:49 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT33 - The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.

"The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread. Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread by trade and their makers remained in one place. Now, analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate: high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Therefore, it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade."
WORDS:498
TIME: 01:01:54
DATE: 2009/7/19 16:17:03

The report of an archaeology journal shows that those distinctively shaped ceramic pots were spread by migration, not trade because of the analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons. However, the author fails to consider the interrelation between the metallic elements contained in prehistoric human bones and the disseminative methods of that pots.

First of all, the report claims that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of metallic element and that metallic element contained in various foods are considerably associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood. Obviously, the people who have high levels of a contained metallic element might be the native citizens in that site instead of the emigrants. And the author also presents little evidence of how high the standard is and how high the metallic elements in those bones, we cannot safely reason that the people were indeed migrated to here. Meanwhile, it seems to be that every site might have various foods with high levels of that metallic element. Hence, the report fails to take into account the resident who also ate those foods. Even though those people were not the natives, they might be the traders who sold those distinctively shaped ceramic pots but lose their lives in other countries.

Furthermore, the fact that the bones which showed high levels of the metallic element does not necessarily prove that the bones’ owner were the host of the pots which stayed near the bones. There is no evidence to show that many of the bones and pots stayed in the same period and some other of the bones might have low levels of that certain metallic element. Consequently, the fact that the report provides is insufficient to support the conclusion that the pots were spread by migration, not trade. In addition, even if the masters of the bones were the owner of the pots, it does not mean that the pots were disseminated by migration rather than trading. The host of the pots might immigrate to this site and bought those local pots.

Lastly, how to identify those distinctively shaped ceramic pots is vague. There is no doubt that the features of those distinctively shaped ceramic pots are different from each other. Unless it can be shown that those pots that were found near the bones are representative of all of distinctively shaped ceramic pots, the conclusion it must be that the pots were spread by migration, not trade is completely unwarranted. What’s more, other pots may be made by local artisans or trading instead of migrating.

In sum, the author should provide more scientific evidence to make sure that all the pots were spread by migration, not trade, for example, identify the standard of high levels of metallic elements and the features of distinctively shape ceramic pots. Moreover, the author should take more consideration of the relationship between the bone with metallic element and the pots in that site.