Interesting side notes:
In my linguistics study as an anthropology student, I remember an excellent paper by a Chinese anthropologist arguing that early Chinese writing was most on bamboo and other decomposable materials, but that evidence suggests it to be older than 5000BC. That was 20 years ago in college, and I’m not a linguist, but I always liked to assume Chinese was older than cuneiform, just as another rejection of the typical Western civilization story.
In reality, agriculture began its dominance as substance economy around 10,000 years ago, and given the necessity of communication and logistics, I’ve read anthropologists argue its silly to assume some earlier written communication didn’t accompany it, and in different regions (such as the sub-continent).
That brings a fascinating cultural perspectives between documented and “justifiable” evidence. Cuneiform is the one we have a sample of, which conforms with our notion of scientific method and fact, but that notion is somewhat culturally biased. The Chinese anthropologist (sorry, can’t remember the reference) noted the non-physical evidence for older Chinese writing is strong enough, but not generally accepted because it doesn’t conform to standards that aren’t even Chinese. So their very history is subjugated by outsiders.