Oldest Writing in the New World Discovered in Mexico

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:08 am

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/New ... 6-021.html

Brown University Media Relations, September 14, 2006

New research published this week in Science details the discovery of
a stone (serpentine) block in Veracruz, Mexico, containing a
previously unknown system of writing, thought to be the earliest in
the New World. An international team of archaeologists, including
Brown University’s Stephen D. Houston, determined that the slab –
named the “Cascajal block” – dates to the early first millennium
B.C.E. and has features that indicate it comes from the Olmec
civilization of Mesoamerica. They say the block and its ancient
script “link the Olmec civilization to literacy, document an
unsuspected writing system, and reveal a new complexity to this
civilization.” Road builders first discovered the Cascajal block in a
pile of debris heaped to the side of a destroyed area in the
community of Lomas de Tacamichapa in the late 1990s. Mexican
archaeologists Carmen Rodríguez and Ponciano Ortíz, lead authors of
the article in Science, were the first to recognize the importance of
the find and to register it officially.

Photos and more detail at
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 091106.php

Doug

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:15 am

this has already been posted Doug
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... 51&start=0
it was right on track until you derailed it with your silliness

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:41 pm

No, it was on track for exactly 3 posts, then GV hijacked it Take a look.

I was hoping by reposting it with an explicit title rather than just Olmec culture it might be possible to actually discuss it, but obviously not. I've actually got the article too.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:03 pm

Okay. Let's see.

Here is a photo of Olmec script

and the current stone...

One can see certain vague similarities but on whole there appears to be little obvious linkage.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:04 pm

Never mind....the site has exceeded it's bandwidth.

Disregard.....looks like they are back on line.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:15 pm

Small point of order, but GV cannot be blamed for hijacking the Olmec thread. I posted three different articles about this writing ( including the one above) in the midst of the argument between Doug and Marduk.

Doug, I have a question. Is there a reason why the two of you should not have your argument at maat instead of hijacking a thread here?

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:32 pm

It is interesting to me that this script bears little resemblance to the later glyphs of maya.
Is this the ancestor, or was this terminated, and a new method invented later on?
........
I noticed that the ice cream cone is sometimes upside down.
Also noticed that the insect seems to come at the beginning (or end) of a line.
The pineapple is always rightside up, and also the shuttlecock.
Anyway, how do they know the whole thing is not upside down?

Linguists?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:47 pm

not that i am disputing that this is the oldest writing, if confirmed as such, my question is; how accurate was the dating method used?

Surrounding the piece were ceramic sherds, clay figurine fragments, and broken artifacts of ground stone, which, in addition to “internal clues” and “regional archaeology,” have helped the team date the block and its text to the San Lorenzo phase, ending about 900 B.C.E. That’s approximately 400 years before writing was thought to have first appeared in the Western hemisphere.

what do they mean by 'internal clues' and 'regional archaeology'? how confident are they that they external evidence was placed by the stone was indeed placed there by the authoring civilization and at that time frame?

Road builders first discovered the Cascajal block in a pile of debris heaped to the side of a destroyed area in the community of Lomas de Tacamichapa in the late 1990s

this bothers me as it indicates it was not found in its original final resting place buut placed in the heap with other debris.

Five sides on the block are convex, while the remaining surface containing the text appears concave; hence, the team believes the block has been carved repeatedly and erased – a discovery Houston calls “unprecedented

are they bucking for some honor by saying this? they have one stone and no mentionof anythng to substantiate their thinking, isn't it a little premature to be building such theories. after all it could be one or two people's personal code to each other.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:34 pm

Text analysis.
The Cascajal block conforms to all expectations of writing (Figs.4and5)(9).
The text deploys
(i)a signary of about 28 distinct elements, each an autonomous,codified glyphic entity;
( ii)a few in repeated,s hort, isolable sequences within larger groupings; and
(iii)a pattern of linear sequencing of variable length, with(iv)a consistent reading order. As products of a writing system, the sequences would by definition reflect patterns of language, with the probable presence of syntax and language-dependent word order(10).

Besides the associated artefacts, they use iconographic parallels for the dating.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:09 am

Sorry if one of your links has this on it. I can't click links on my ancient artifact of a computer. A photo gallery.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/olmecci ... x.htm?nl=1

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:18 am

Not a lot of similarity between the new find and previous finds.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/epiolmec.html

One of the most amazing thing about Mesoamerican archaeology is that new discoveries are constantly being made. Among one of the most important was the discovery of an inscribed slab found under the waters of the Acula River near the village of La Mojarra in 1986 in the Mexican state of Veracruz. Dubbed Stela 1 of La Mojarra, this monument was inscribed with 465 glyphs arranged in 21 columns, and the image of a ruler. The writing on it is nothing like any other writing system in Mesoamerica, such as Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, or Aztec, although like the Maya it also used the Long Count.

However, Stela 1 of La Mojarra is not the only example of its writing system. Most of the monuments that bear glyphs in the same (or similar) writing system are also found near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the thin stretch of land that separates the majority of Mexico from its south-eastern states and from Central America, although none has texts as long as the Stela. The famous Tuxtla Statuette, a hand-length nephrite figurine of an almost comedic man dressed in a duck's outfit, bears a Long Count date of 162 CE as well as non-calendric glyphs. Other famous inscriptions include Stela C of Tres Zapotes, with a Long Count date of 32 BCE, and Stela 1 of Chiapa de Corzo (located in Chiapas, Mexico), with an incomplete date conjectured to be 36 BCE. In the site of Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, highly erroded monuments also bear Long Count dates, but from the early Classic period at around 450 CE, as well as a large stone version of the Tuxtla Statuette devoid of any text.

stan · Post by **stan** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:18 pm

This is all baffling to me.
How does one know what counts as similarity between symbols from the three "glyphabets" posted by minimalist on this thread?

Th oldest one has signs with a vertical orientation, and the most recent has horizontal signs.

One would think that the oldest one (if it were successful) would have been borrowed and developed by later societies.
But without a "rosetta stone" it may be impossible to know if that happened. If not, it seems that each society developed its own system....??