Argument33 骨头和罐子

aefiterUID: 2134740

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: 422          TIME: 0:27:00          DATE: 2007-2-6

Relying on a new method to assess one certain metallic element in the bones of ancient people, the arguer concludes that the ceramic pots were spread by migration, but not by trade. At first glance, this new method appositely settled the debate. However, several assumptions, which are not evidenced, are critical to this line of reasoning. As a result, the arguer cannot convince us about the conclusion.

Firstly, the arguer unfoundedly assumes the bones found near the ceramic pots have relations to, or more specifically, are the owners of, the ceramic pots mentioned in this argument. However, another possibility, that bones and ceramic pots are irrelevant, is also reasonable. Suppose, for example, bones are accumulated in the sites where pots were found, but these bones are either hundreds of years before, or after the time when pots were located at the same site. For this reason, the two kinds of things came from different historical stage. Even if the assessment of bones found they are migrant people, they could not substantiate anything about the ceramic pots.

Furthermore, even we concede the bones and ceramic pots are related, which means the pots were either produced, or traded by the people who coexisted with pots in the sites, to conclude from the analysis of the bones is still imprudent. As the arguer has mentioned, the analysis of bones will determine whether the person migrated to a new place after childhood. However, traders may also be those who migrated after childhood for some reasons we cannot investigate. If the traders of ceramic pots were migrants before they were engaged in trading, the result of the analysis of bones could not assert the pots were spread by migration.

Finally, even we acknowledge that the analyzed bones indicate that the pots were carried to that site by migration, the arguer cannot generalize this result to the origin of all ceramic pots over a wide area. After all, only a few sites of bones showed high levels of the metallic elements. Accordingly, we have reason to assume that bones in other sites, which were not analyzed, may not contain the certain metallic elements that is critical to determine the property of the bone.

To sum up, the seemingly reasonable argument actually suffers from some logic flaws. To bolster its reasoning, the arguer should identify the relationship between the bones and the pots accompanied with them. Further, the arguer should substantiate that traders could not be at the same time migrants. Finally, the arguer need to examine the bones of all sites to establish the theory that widely scattered ceramic pots were caused not by trading, but by migration of the people who owned those pots.