Text 1
Archaeologist Denise Schmandt-Besserat posits that the small clay tokens recovered from Near Eastern Neolithic sites starting around 8000 BCE formed a standardized accounting system that directly evolved into cuneiform writing. According to her, the uniform shapes of these tokens across disparate regions demonstrate a centralized, shared cognitive framework for tracking goods, serving as the essential precursor that made formal writing systems possible.
Text 2
Piotr Michalowski argues that the token hypothesis oversimplifies the socio-economic variety of the ancient Near East. He points out that similar token shapes were often used for highly localized, unrelated purposes in different settlements, rather than representing a singular, region-wide accounting network. Thus, Michalowski contends that the emergence of cuneiform was driven by complex, localized administrative needs rather than the linear evolution of a unified token system.
Based on the passages, how would Michalowski (Text 2) most likely respond to Schmandt-Besserat's claim in Text 1 that the uniform shapes of clay tokens across disparate regions demonstrate a centralized, shared cognitive framework?
- ABy asserting that the tokens were not actually designed to track goods but were instead used as artistic ornaments in Neolithic settlements.
- BBy agreeing that the uniformity of token shapes across regions indicates a shared accounting framework, but arguing that this framework was too simplistic to lead to cuneiform.
- By contending that the similarity in token shapes does not demonstrate a unified regional network, as different communities likely used those shapes for distinct, localized functions.Cevap
- DBy demonstrating that the clay tokens were only used in a few select settlements rather than across disparate regions as claimed.