argument 33

gyh1001UID: 2776564

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: 375          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010/8/9 11:39:48

The report above mentions a debate on whether the pots were spread by migration or trade, and prefers the former in the support of evidence concerning the fact that high levels of certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood, and the discoveries that many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. Convincing and logical as it may seem, a careful scrutiny reveals its lacking of persuasion due to several fatal drawbacks.
To begin with, whether the analysis about the relation between high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods and the migrants is true require more detailed prove. Common sense tells us that different places possess different ratio of certain , and different metallic elements different experience in the body of human. Will the certain metallic element always keeps in high levels as long as people migrates, no matter what their origins and destinations are, and how large their diet habits differ? Without strong support it will be incredible.
Moreover, even assuming the analysis is right, some other details undermine its validity. First, the levels in foods don't account for those in bones. As is known to all, not all of the metallic elements can be absorbed by body, and some of the absorbed may not be stored in bone. Therefore, not knowing the special characteristic of the metallic element, it is unwarranted to assert the equation of levels in foods and bones. Besides, the analysis emphasizes that the people must migrate when they are children. Then what about the adult migrants? After all, it is impractical to supposing that children move to a new place without the company of adult, and they cannot bring pots themselves because they are not able to use it.
Even neglecting the trivial aspects, there is no direct relation between the migrants and pots. Must they carry pots with them when they migrate? After all, the discovery that the bones containing high levels of the certain metallic element are near the pots isn't sufficient to prove that they are migrants. Maybe, they come from other people in eras after the migrants. In addition, the discovery only appears in a few sites, which may not be enough to reflect the whole condition comprehensively.
In sum, lacking of strict deductions renders little support to the author's assertion. If he can provides more statistics concerning the correctness of the analysis, and strengthen the cause and effect relationship between pots and migrants, and diminish its some trivial shortcomings, the conclusion will be more persuasive.