Question

For decades, archaeological models of Mesopotamian administration attributed the origin of proto-cuneiform writing in late fourth-millennium BCE Uruk directly to the use of geometric clay tokens encased in spherical clay envelopes (*bullae*). According to this classical hypothesis, three-dimensional tokens represented specific commodities and quantities. When transactions occurred, tokens were sealed inside a clay bulla to prevent tampering; however, because the contents could not be verified without breaking the sealed sphere, accountants began pressing tokens onto the damp exterior surface before enclosing them, creating two-dimensional impressions. Eventually, administrators realized the hollow sphere and enclosed tokens were redundant, leading directly to flat clay tablets bearing impressed numerical signs and inscribed pictographs.

Recent excavations and stratigraphic re-evaluations at sites outside southern Mesopotamia, however, have complicated this unilinear model. Impressed flat tablets have been identified in archaeological horizons contemporaneous with, and in several instances predating, the widespread use of sealed *bullae* bearing exterior impressions. Furthermore, while plain geometric tokens (such as spheres, cones, and disks) appear across vast regions spanning several millennia with notable morphological stability, complex tokens bearing incised linear markings and punctations are largely confined to major monumental urban centers and appear concurrently with early tablet writing rather than preceding it. These chronological and spatial patterns suggest that rather than representing a sequential ancestral precursor to writing, complex tokens and flat tablets may have developed as parallel, specialized administrative responses to distinct logistical demands within increasingly stratified economies.

Based on the passage, which of the following statements regarding the relationship between *bullae* and early flat tablets is most strongly supported?