How are they so sure that this object was even a writing utensil to begin with. It could just be coincidence that the object is similar to a crayon. The material rubs off when used to write but that isn't hard evidence that that was it's original purpose. Without any context it just appears to be a crayon. Unlike how Haltman explained, the article is based purely on the physical aspects of the artifact instead of the more abstract side. What could the object have meant to the people of that era?