ARGUMENT33 一个没有逻辑的考古 骨头坛子题, 互拍！

MIMOSARLUID: 2112846

33The 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."

Starting from the premise that the high levels of metallic element being absorbed in bones could prove that in childhood those people migrated to other places, the arguer reasons that with the founding of a few sites showed the high levees of the metallic element it must be the pots were spread by migration. Though the statement is well-presented, further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

First of all, there is no evidence to prove that the technology of making pots were only controlled by one kind of people in a limited area and only with their migrating, those distinctively shaped ceramic pots could be spread. On the contrary, the statement that "The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area……" maybe could prove that at prehistoric area, people in different location all knew how to make pots. During their different location, experience and the different use of pots, their pots had distinctive shapes and located in different places.

Furthermore, the arguer rests on an assumption that those bones could prove that pots were scatted with the migration of people. Firstly, there is no evidence to prove that only one place produced highly metallic elements food and no any trade existed in prehistoric. It is entirely possible that not only pots but also foods were traded by people in different locations. It is highly possible that some children in other places ate those foods with the metallic element, and then those bones found in different locations also had those metallic elements. Furthermore, though those bones and pots are at the same location, it may be possible that because the exploding new land or the motion of lands, those bones and pots being missed together. There is no evidence could prove that in prehistory area the geography had no any changes. Without ruling out such possibilities, there is no guarantee to prove the author's conclusion.

Last but not the least, the author falls a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that only the discovery of pots in a few place of those bones with highly metallic besides pots could improve that it was being the migration that those pots were scatted. It is entirely possible that except the pots in few locations were scattered by migration, but other pots found in most places were scattered by trade. Moreover, except migration and trade, there maybe still have other ways caused the scatter of pots, such as war, hunt, or exploring. Or maybe residents in other places sent their children as apprentice to learn the experience in some locations. Therefore, without further evidence, we cannot be convinced that only through trade or migrating, those pots were scattered in different places.


As it stands, the argument is not well-reasoned. Before we accept the author's claim, more work is need by prove the direct relationship between highly metallic elements and bones. Besides, the argument could be further improved by evaluating other alternatives.