# The Cascajal block and Isthmian writing > The Cascajal block is a serpentine slab from the Olmec heartland of Veracruz with 62 incised signs, about 28 of them distinct, published in 2006 as the… Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block Publisher: Mysteries Department Licence: CC BY 4.0 (credit Mysteries Department and link the page) Updated: 2026-10-27T17:47:12+00:00 --- **MYS** 0CYBBQ225GHJ·Mystery · object # The Cascajal block and Isthmian writing **0** [Follow][Ask a question](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=cascajal-block) The Cascajal block and Isthmian writing ![A drawing of the Cascajal block.](https://mysteriesdept.com/media/folio/cascajal-block-lead) Michael Everson · CC BY 3.0 Where found El Cascajal quarry, Lomas de Tacamichapa, Jáltipan, Veracruz, near San Lorenzo⁠[[1]] Found Reported to INAH in April 1999; published September 2006⁠[[1]] Object Serpentinite slab, 36 by 21 by 13 cm, about 11.5 kg⁠[[10]] Text 62 signs, about 28 distinct, on one flat face⁠[[2]] Date claimed San Lorenzo phase, about 900 BC, from associated sherds⁠[[2]] Stone source Serpentinite matching Tehuitzingo, Puebla⁠[[4]] Related script Isthmian (Epi-Olmec): La Mojarra Stela 1 (about 535 glyphs, AD 143 and 156), Tuxtla Statuette⁠[[17]] Open data None; drawings and sign catalogues in the papers and their supplements⁠[[6]] Status Partly explained Questions 0 of 6 answered People [**John S. Justeson** Linguist; Epi-Olmec decipherment](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBTFE0CD5/john-s-justeson)[**Terrence Kaufman** Linguist; Epi-Olmec decipherment, Mixe-Zoquean reconstruction](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBTQ84R0C/terrence-kaufman)[**David F. Mora-Marín** Linguist (UNC); reading order and distributional analysis](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBSZT2DQX/david-f-mora-marin)[**Joshua D. Englehardt** Archaeologist; archaeometric study](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBT7M6MQ6/joshua-d-englehardt)[**Michael D. Coe** Mesoamericanist (Yale); co-author of the 2006 paper; critic of the Isthmian decipherment](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBS8C1PEM/michael-d-coe) All 9 people › [**Stephen D. Houston** Epigrapher; drew the block; critic of the Isthmian decipherment](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBSG605RP/stephen-d-houston)[**Karen O. Bruhns** Archaeologist; 2007 critique](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBSR02E31/karen-o-bruhns)[**María del Carmen Rodríguez Martínez** INAH archaeologist; registered and published the block](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBRRR52BG/maria-del-carmen-rodriguez-martinez)[**Ponciano Ortíz Ceballos** INAH archaeologist; registered and published the block](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/people/FIG0CYBBS0J3YAR/ponciano-ortiz-ceballos) Catalog key**MYS** 0CYBBQ225GHJ In April 1999 the authorities of Jáltipan, Veracruz, asked Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) to look at objects turned up in a gravel quarry. The quarry was cutting into the mounds of a site since named El Cascajal, within sight of the Olmec centre of San Lorenzo, and among the sherds, figurine pieces and ground stone in the debris was a slab of serpentine with incised signs on one face⁠[[1]]. Seven scholars published it in Science in 2006 as the oldest writing in the New World: 62 signs, about 28 of them distinct, arranged in sequences that repeat, dated by the associated pottery to the San Lorenzo phase, about 900 BC⁠[[2]]. The block has stayed contested on three counts. It has no stratigraphic context, so its date depends on which sherds in the debris it belongs with; it is unique, since no other Olmec text of any length exists; and its layout is unlike any later Mesoamerican script. Bruhns and Kelker raised all three in 2007 and suggested a hoax was possible; the authors replied the same year⁠[[3]]. Since then the work has gone two ways. Englehardt and colleagues examined the stone with imaging, X-ray fluorescence and microscopy and found Olmec material and ancient workmanship⁠[[4]]. Mora-Marín has re-drawn the text, proposed that it should be turned and read in columns, and argued that its sign co-occurrences look like spelling in a logosyllabic script⁠[[5]]⁠[[6]]. The nearest readable relative would be the Isthmian or Epi-Olmec script of the same region a millennium later, on La Mojarra Stela 1, the Tuxtla Statuette and a few other objects. Justeson and Kaufman published a decipherment in 1993 as an early Zoquean language; Houston and Coe applied it to a newly known text in 2003 and found it failed. Neither script is agreed to be read⁠[[7]]⁠[[8]]⁠[[9]]. Of the 6 questions on this site, 0 are answered. The most likely answer to “Has Isthmian (Epi-Olmec) writing been deciphered?”, not yet confirmed: the decipherment is unproven or wrong; the corpus is too small to confirm it. ### Key questionsset by the editors [**Has Isthmian (Epi-Olmec) writing been deciphered?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBYCE2Y3M/has-isthmian-epi-olmec-writing-been-deciphered)Most likely: the decipherment is unproven or wrong; the corpus is too small to confirm it [**Is the Cascajal inscription writing?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXD674WZ/is-the-cascajal-inscription-writing)Most likely: the signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of language [**Is the block an ancient Olmec object?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXN038ZM/is-the-block-an-ancient-olmec-object)Most likely: the block and its incisions are ancient Olmec work [All 6 questions ](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=cascajal-block) ## The object The block is a slab of serpentinite about 36 by 21 by 13 cm, weighing about 11.5 kg. Five sides are slightly convex; the sixth was smoothed flat and carries the signs, cut with a blunt blade for outlines and a sharper one for interior detail⁠[[10]]⁠[[1]]. The 2006 paper numbered 62 signs and grouped them into about 28 distinct forms, some appearing up to four times; many resemble Olmec motifs (maize, pineapple, insects, a fish, a bundle)⁠[[2]]⁠[[1]]. Mora-Marín's 2020 drawing, made from Carrasco and Englehardt's documentation, is the current reference copy; Englehardt's group also re-imaged the surface with polynomial texture mapping⁠[[6]]⁠[[4]]. [![The Cascajal block](https://mysteriesdept.com/media/folio/cascajal-block-a-cascajal-m1)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBC9C07Q02/the-cascajal-block) The Cascajal blockMichael Everson, 1999. CC BY 3.0[Artifact ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBC9C07Q02/the-cascajal-block) No open dataset exists. The sign numbering and drawings are in the Science paper and its supplement, the 2020 drawing and distributional tables in the Ancient Mesoamerica supplements, and photographs on FAMSI and Mesoweb without stated reuse terms⁠[[2]]⁠[[6]]⁠[[11]]⁠[[1]]. The custody and display of the block were not established in this research. **Map of the region** [Open the full map](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/map) [+][−] 1 **Museo de Antropología de Xalapa** Museum Mapped 2 **La Mojarra, Acula River, Veracruz** Find spot A region 3 **Tehuitzingo, Puebla** Serpentinite source Within 10 km 4 **Tres Zapotes, Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz** Village Within 10 km 5 **El Cascajal, Lomas de Tacamichapa, Jáltipan, Veracruz** Archaeological site (quarry) Within 10 km 6 **San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán** Archaeological site Within 10 km MappedA regionNatural Earth ### Timeline **Timeline** Squeezed where little happened. Each mark is a published claim, by how it stands:AcceptedMost likelyStill possibleDisputedRuled out ## What is known The find is documented only as debris. About three quarters of the material collected with the block is Formative, nearly all of the San Lorenzo phase (uncalibrated 1200 to 900 BC) with a few Palangana sherds, and a quarter Terminal Classic; the authors placed the block late in San Lorenzo B, about 900 BC, also on the grounds that its motifs are Olmec and cannot be Classic⁠[[1]]⁠[[2]]. The stone and its working have been examined. Weathering, pitting over the incisions and mineralisation in the lines were reported in 2006 and confirmed by INAH's geological laboratory⁠[[1]]. The 2020 study added X-ray fluorescence matching the serpentinite to a source at Tehuitzingo, Puebla, used for Olmec stone, and electron microscopy showing incision with obsidian and abrasion with sandstone⁠[[4]]. The text's structure is partly described. Signs and short sequences repeat, some in pairs; Carrasco and Englehardt identified paired signs as possible diphrastic kennings of the kind known in later Mesoamerican texts, and Mora-Marín found a further repeated pair (PELT-PAW)⁠[[6]]. The reading order is disputed: horizontal rows in 2006, columns after a 90-degree turn in 2009⁠[[2]]⁠[[5]]. ## What has been tested Authenticity has been tested more than anything else. Against the 2007 objections, the 2020 imaging and archaeometry found Olmec-source stone and ancient tool marks and patina, which makes a modern forgery on fresh stone unlikely; it does not test whether old stone was incised later⁠[[4]]⁠[[3]]. The date has not been tested independently, because no organic material is associated with the block and the debris is mixed⁠[[1]]. Whether the signs are writing has been tested by distribution. The 2006 authors argued from repetition and sequencing; Mora-Marín tested the proposed inventory against co-occurrence and argued that the irregularities others had noticed fit logosyllabic spelling⁠[[2]]⁠[[6]]. These are analyses of a single text of 62 signs, which limits what any statistic can show. [![La Mojarra Stela 1](https://mysteriesdept.com/media/folio/cascajal-block-a-la-mojarra-m1)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCAK21H01/la-mojarra-stela-1) La Mojarra Stela 1Adrian Hernandez. CC BY-SA 4.0[Artifact ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCAK21H01/la-mojarra-stela-1) [![The Tuxtla Statuette](https://mysteriesdept.com/media/folio/cascajal-block-a-tuxtla-m1)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCATW2CT1/the-tuxtla-statuette) The Tuxtla StatuetteGary Todd. CC0[Artifact ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCATW2CT1/the-tuxtla-statuette) The Isthmian decipherment has had one formal test each way. Justeson and Kaufman reported in 1997 that a column on La Mojarra Stela 1 noticed in 1995, after their decipherment, read readily with their values⁠[[12]]. Houston and Coe applied the same values to the back of a Teotihuacan-style mask of unknown provenance, with about 101 glyphs, 25 of them new, and could not obtain a reading⁠[[8]]⁠[[13]]. ## The readings Four positions on the Cascajal block are in print. It is writing, the earliest in Mesoamerica, possibly logosyllabic and possibly ancestral to later Isthmian writing⁠[[2]]⁠[[6]]⁠[[14]]. It is a ritual text whose signs belong to an Olmec vocabulary, an initiation rite on Magni's reading⁠[[15]]. It is not writing but an arrangement of sacred objects drawn in Olmec iconography⁠[[16]]. Or it is undatable and possibly a hoax, the view Bruhns and Kelker raised, with doubts also voiced by Grove and Pool⁠[[3]]⁠[[10]]. On Isthmian, Justeson and Kaufman read La Mojarra Stela 1 as the record of a ruler's accession, wars and rituals in an early Zoquean language; Houston and Coe, and Robinson in a later survey, regard the decipherment as unproven; Vonk has argued that the corpus is too small for any unique decipherment⁠[[7]]⁠[[8]]⁠[[9]]⁠[[17]]. ### Published claims **Published claims and their status** | Year | Who | Claimed | Status | Reason | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1993 | John Justeson and Terrence Kaufman⁠[7] | Epi-Olmec writing records an early Zoquean language, and La Mojarra Stela 1 tells of a ruler's accession, wars and rituals. | Disputed | Houston and Coe applied the values to a new text and could not obtain a reading, and the field holds the decipherment unproven⁠[8]⁠[9] | | 1997 | John Justeson and Terrence Kaufman⁠[12] | A column on La Mojarra Stela 1 first noticed in 1995 reads readily with the 1993 values, which confirms the decipherment. | Disputed | The test was run by the decipherers themselves, and the next independent test, on the Teotihuacan-style mask, failed⁠[8] | | 2003 | Stephen Houston and Michael Coe⁠[8] | Applied to the Teotihuacan-style mask, the Justeson and Kaufman values give no reading, so Isthmian writing has not been deciphered. | Accepted | Later surveys take the same position, that the corpus is too small to confirm the decipherment⁠[9] | | 2006 | María del Carmen Rodríguez Martínez, Ponciano Ortíz Ceballos and colleagues⁠[2] | The Cascajal block carries writing, with repeated signs and sequences, and is the oldest known in the New World. | Still possible | The sign distribution is suggestive, but with a single text of 62 signs there is nothing to test a script against⁠[6]⁠[3] | | 2006 | María del Carmen Rodríguez Martínez, Ponciano Ortíz Ceballos and colleagues⁠[2] | The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase sherds in the quarry debris and dates to about 900 BC. | Still possible | The debris was mixed and included later sherds, and the date has not been tested independently⁠[1] | | 2007 | Karen Bruhns and Nancy Kelker⁠[3] | The block cannot be dated from bulldozer debris, its signs do not behave like a script, and a hoax cannot be excluded. | Disputed | The 2020 study found Olmec-source stone and ancient tool marks under the patina, though it could not test whether old stone was incised later⁠[4] | | 2008 | Caterina Magni⁠[15] | The block is a religious text, the record of an initiation rite, written in an Olmec glyph vocabulary. | Still possible | No one has tested the reading, and it depends on the block being writing, which is itself unsettled⁠[10] | | 2009 | David Mora-Marín⁠[5] | The block should be turned 90 degrees and read in columns, not rows. | Still possible | Mora-Marín's later analyses build on the column order, but no one has tested it against the row order with shuffled controls⁠[6] | | 2010 | David Freidel and F. Kent Reilly⁠[16] | The signs are not a script but a ritual arrangement of sacred objects drawn in Olmec iconography. | Still possible | Many signs do match Olmec motifs, but that fits both readings, and one text cannot decide between them⁠[14] | | 2020 | Joshua Englehardt and colleagues⁠[4] | The block is serpentinite from Tehuitzingo, a source the Olmec used, incised with obsidian and abraded with sandstone in antiquity. | Accepted | It agrees with INAH's earlier geological report of weathering and mineralisation in the incisions⁠[1] | | 2020 | David Mora-Marín⁠[6] | The co-occurrence of signs on the block, including its irregularities, fits spelling in a logosyllabic script. | Still possible | The analysis rests on a single short text and has not been run against shuffled or non-linguistic controls⁠[6] | | 2024 | David Mora-Marín⁠[14] | The Cascajal signs match Olmec motifs and are consistent with the later Epi-Olmec signary. | Still possible | These are research notes, not peer reviewed, and about a thousand years with almost no texts separate the two scripts⁠[9] | ## The Isthmian script Isthmian texts come from southern Veracruz and Chiapas; the oldest is a sherd of 450 to 300 BC and the longest dates to the second century AD. La Mojarra Stela 1, a four-ton limestone stela pulled from the Acula River in 1986 and now in the Museo de Antropología de Xalapa, carries about 535 glyphs and Long Count dates of AD 143 and 156; the Tuxtla Statuette, a nephrite figure found near Tres Zapotes in 1902 and held by the Smithsonian, has a possible date of AD 162⁠[[17]]⁠[[18]]. The rest of the corpus is short: Tres Zapotes Stela C, a few glyphs at Cerro de las Mesas, the O'Boyle mask, the Teotihuacan-style mask, and a sherd from Chiapa de Corzo of 450 to 300 BC⁠[[9]]. Kaufman and Justeson's working papers are archived at AILLA, some open and some restricted⁠[[19]]. ## What would settle it For the block, a second inscribed Olmec object from a dated, excavated context would answer the uniqueness objection and anchor the date; residue or microstratigraphic analysis inside the incisions could test whether the cutting is as old as the patina⁠[[4]]⁠[[3]]. For both scripts, a machine-readable sign-by-sign transcription of every text in one numbering would allow the repeated-pair and co-occurrence claims to be tested against shuffled controls⁠[[6]]. For Isthmian, a new substantial text read with the 1993 values fixed in advance, by someone other than the decipherers, would decide it⁠[[12]]⁠[[8]]. ## Questions 0 of 6 questions are answered. **Key questions** [All 6](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=cascajal-block) **0** [Has Isthmian (Epi-Olmec) writing been deciphered?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBYCE2Y3M/has-isthmian-epi-olmec-writing-been-deciphered) 0 of 1 sub-questions answered·0 Most likely: the decipherment is unproven or wrong; the corpus is too small to confirm it **0** [Is the Cascajal inscription writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXD674WZ/is-the-cascajal-inscription-writing) 0 of 1 sub-questions answered·0 Most likely: the signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of language **0** [Is the block an ancient Olmec object?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXN038ZM/is-the-block-an-ancient-olmec-object) 0 of 1 sub-questions answered·0 Most likely: the block and its incisions are ancient Olmec work ## Evidence 20 findings [Is the Cascajal inscription writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXD674WZ/is-the-cascajal-inscription-writing)6 findings [The block carries a text in an Olmec script, recording language, probably logosyllabic.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBBYW22P76/the-block-carries-a-text-in-an-olmec-script-recording)Most likely +[62 signs from about 28 forms include repeated signs and repeated sequences.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBBZ3W695H/62-signs-from-about-28-forms-include-repeated-signs-and)Supported +[Sign co-occurrence irregularities are consistent with logosyllabic spelling; a repeated PELT-PAW pair is proposed.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBBZBP16KY/sign-co-occurrence-irregularities-are-consistent-with)Suggestive −[The signs bunch without the linear layout of a script.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBBZKG3MCC/the-signs-bunch-without-the-linear-layout-of-a-script)Suggestive −[No second Olmec text of comparable length is known.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBBZVA0FM7/no-second-olmec-text-of-comparable-length-is-known)Established [The signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of language.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC0340JG9/the-signs-are-a-ritual-arrangement-of-sacred-images-in-olmec)Most likely +[Several signs had been read as decoration on other Olmec objects.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC0AY1EFT/several-signs-had-been-read-as-decoration-on-other-olmec)Suggestive +[The signs match motifs in Joralemon's catalogue of Olmec art.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC0JR5EXC/the-signs-match-motifs-in-joralemons-catalogue-of-olmec-art)Suggestive [Is the block an ancient Olmec object?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXN038ZM/is-the-block-an-ancient-olmec-object)4 findings [The block and its incisions are ancient Olmec work.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC12C6WNE/the-block-and-its-incisions-are-ancient-olmec-work)Most likely +[XRF matches the serpentinite to Tehuitzingo, Puebla, an Olmec source.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC1A60ACH/xrf-matches-the-serpentinite-to-tehuitzingo-puebla-an-olmec)Supported +[SEM shows incision with obsidian and abrasion with sandstone.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC1J01ZH1/sem-shows-incision-with-obsidian-and-abrasion-with-sandstone)Supported +[Pitting over incisions and mineralisation in the lines indicate ancient surface alteration; confirmed by INAH's geological laboratory.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC1ST768A/pitting-over-incisions-and-mineralisation-in-the-lines)Supported [The inscription is a modern addition or hoax on an old or newly worked stone.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC21M1PAX/the-inscription-is-a-modern-addition-or-hoax-on-an-old-or)Disputed +[The block is unique and from a disturbed context.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC29E5G3T/the-block-is-unique-and-from-a-disturbed-context)Established [Does the block date to the San Lorenzo phase, about 900 BC?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXWT7R64/does-the-block-date-to-the-san-lorenzo-phase-about-900-bc)4 findings [The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC2S25DN5/the-block-belongs-with-the-san-lorenzo-phase-material-about)Most likely +[Nearly all the Formative sherds in the debris are San Lorenzo phase.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC30W72ZQ/nearly-all-the-formative-sherds-in-the-debris-are-san)Suggestive +[The motifs are Olmec and cannot be Terminal Classic.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC38P06KP/the-motifs-are-olmec-and-cannot-be-terminal-classic)Suggestive −[Dating rests on associated ceramics, not a dated occupation level.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC3GG5W1A/dating-rests-on-associated-ceramics-not-a-dated-occupation)Established [The block dates to the Middle Formative (Palangana phase or later), after 900 BC.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC3RA2WQE/the-block-dates-to-the-middle-formative-palangana-phase-or)Still possible +[A few Palangana sherds (800 to 400 BC) were in the debris.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC4046J7K/a-few-palangana-sherds-800-to-400-bc-were-in-the-debris)Suggestive [How is the Cascajal text laid out and read?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBY4M58X1/how-is-the-cascajal-text-laid-out-and-read)2 findings [The block should be rotated 90 degrees and read in columns, left to right and top to bottom.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC4QJ6B9F/the-block-should-be-rotated-90-degrees-and-read-in-columns)Most likely +[Repeated sequences and layout favour a column format like later Mesoamerican scripts.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC4ZC0Q5N/repeated-sequences-and-layout-favour-a-column-format-like)Suggestive +[The pelt and paw signs, often adjacent, continue into the next column under this order.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC5762QXN/the-pelt-and-paw-signs-often-adjacent-continue-into-the-next)Speculative [Has Isthmian (Epi-Olmec) writing been deciphered?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBYCE2Y3M/has-isthmian-epi-olmec-writing-been-deciphered)3 findings [Justeson and Kaufman's 1993 decipherment is broadly correct; Isthmian writes an early Zoquean language.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC5PT65YK/justeson-and-kaufmans-1993-decipherment-is-broadly-correct)Disputed +[A column noticed in 1995, after the decipherment, read readily with the 1993 values.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC5YM6NG6/a-column-noticed-in-1995-after-the-decipherment-read-readily)Suggestive [The decipherment is unproven or wrong; the corpus is too small to confirm it.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC66E4NT0/the-decipherment-is-unproven-or-wrong-the-corpus-is-too)Most likely +[Applied to the 101-glyph Teotihuacan-style mask, the values gave no reading.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC6E802G9/applied-to-the-101-glyph-teotihuacan-style-mask-the-values)Suggestive +[The corpus has only four long texts.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC6P26V7P/the-corpus-has-only-four-long-texts)Established [Is the Cascajal script ancestral to Isthmian writing?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBYM82QGT/is-the-cascajal-script-ancestral-to-isthmian-writing)1 finding [Cascajal is an early stage of the Olmec-derived tradition that led to Isthmian writing.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC75P7DQJ/cascajal-is-an-early-stage-of-the-olmec-derived-tradition)Still possible +[Mora-Marín finds the Cascajal signary consistent with later Epi-Olmec writing.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/evidence/EVD0CYBC7DG1A24/mora-marin-finds-the-cascajal-signary-consistent-with-later)Speculative ## Artifacts The films, photos, papers and objects this mystery rests on, each with its own key and its distance from the original. **Artifacts** [See all 15](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts) Photo1 step from object [The Cascajal block](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBC9C07Q02/the-cascajal-block) Michael Everson · CC BY 3.0 Photo1 step from object [La Mojarra Stela 1](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCAK21H01/la-mojarra-stela-1) Adrian Hernandez · CC BY-SA 4.0 Photo1 step from object [The Tuxtla Statuette](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCATW2CT1/the-tuxtla-statuette) Gary Todd · CC0 Photo1 step from object [Teotihuacan-style mask with Isthmian text](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts/ART0CYBCBAG45NP/teotihuacan-style-mask-with-isthmian-text) courtesy Michael Coe · not stated [See all 15 artifacts](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/artifacts) ## See also [ **Phaistos Disc** A clay disc stamped with 241 signs in spirals, found at Phaistos, Crete, in 1908. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/phaistos-disc) [ **White Shaman Mural** A painted creation story, or a shaman's vision, on a rock shelter wall above the Pecos River. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/white-shaman-mural) [ **Shroud of Turin** A linen cloth with the image of a crucified man, radiocarbon-dated to 1260 to 1390. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/shroud-of-turin) [ **Kensington Runestone** A runic slab dated 1362, found in Minnesota in 1898 and judged a later carving. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/kensington-runestone) ## References 1. 1.[Skidmore, J. 2006. The Cascajal Block: The Earliest Precolumbian Writing. Mesoweb Reports, Precolumbia Mesoweb Press.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBJDM1BJG/the-cascajal-block-the-earliest-precolumbian-writing)cited 10 times here**SRC** 0CYBBJDM1BJG 1. 2.[Rodríguez Martínez, M., Ortíz Ceballos, P., Coe, M. et al. 2006. Oldest Writing in the New World. Science 313(5793), pp. 1610 to 1614.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBJ5T0KBD/oldest-writing-in-the-new-world)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131492)cited 13 times here**SRC** 0CYBBJ5T0KBD 1. 3.[Bruhns, K., Kelker, N. 2007. Did the Olmec Know How to Write?. Science 315(5817), pp. 1365 to 1366 (letter, with the authors' reply).](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBJNE430Z/did-the-olmec-know-how-to-write)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.315.5817.1365b)cited 9 times here**SRC** 0CYBBJNE430Z 1. 4.[Englehardt, J., Insaurralde Caballero, M., Melgar Tísoc, E. et al. 2020. Digital Imaging and Archaeometric Analysis of the Cascajal Block: Establishing Context and Authenticity for the Earliest Known Olmec Text. Ancient Mesoamerica 31(2), pp. 189 to 209.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBKCW2VEJ/digital-imaging-and-archaeometric-analysis-of-the-cascajal)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536119000257)cited 8 times here**SRC** 0CYBBKCW2VEJ 1. 5.[Mora-Marín, D. 2009. Early Olmec Writing: Reading Format and Reading Order. Latin American Antiquity 20(3), pp. 395 to 412.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBJX86XAQ/early-olmec-writing-reading-format-and-reading-order)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1017/S1045663500002777)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0CYBBJX86XAQ 1. 6.[Mora-Marín, D. 2020. The Cascajal Block: New Line Drawing, Distributional Analysis, and Orthographic Patterns. Ancient Mesoamerica 31(2), pp. 210 to 229.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBK523QRA/the-cascajal-block-new-line-drawing-distributional-analysis)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536119000270)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0CYBBK523QRA 1. 7.[Justeson, J., Kaufman, T. 1993. A Decipherment of Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing. Science 259(5102), pp. 1703 to 1711.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBMKY1WQF/a-decipherment-of-epi-olmec-hieroglyphic-writing)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.259.5102.1703)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0CYBBMKY1WQF 1. 8.[Houston, S., Coe, M. 2003. Has Isthmian Writing Been Deciphered?. Mexicon 25(6), pp. 151 to 161.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBN3J413Z/has-isthmian-writing-been-deciphered)cited 7 times here**SRC** 0CYBBN3J413Z 1. 9.[Wikipedia contributors n.d.. Isthmian script. Wikipedia.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBNK62YR9/isthmian-script)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0CYBBNK62YR9 1. 10.[Wikipedia contributors n.d.. Cascajal Block. Wikipedia.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBKWG7GE5/cascajal-block)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0CYBBKWG7GE5 1. 11.[Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies n.d.. Cascajal Block (FAMSI Maya writing pages). famsi.org.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBPJE7WJH/cascajal-block-famsi-maya-writing-pages)cited 1 time here**SRC** 0CYBBPJE7WJH 1. 12.[Justeson, J., Kaufman, T. 1997. A Newly Discovered Column in the Hieroglyphic Text on La Mojarra Stela 1: A Test of the Epi-Olmec Decipherment. Science 277(5323), pp. 207 to 210.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBMVR5839/a-newly-discovered-column-in-the-hieroglyphic-text-on-la)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5323.207)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0CYBBMVR5839 1. 13.[Mesoweb 2004. Ancient Mask Adds to Corpus of Isthmian Script. mesoweb.com.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBNBC71F2/ancient-mask-adds-to-corpus-of-isthmian-script)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0CYBBNBC71F2 1. 14.[Mora-Marín, D. 2024. The Cascajal Block: Iconographic Motivations, Part 3 (Note 36). davidmm.web.unc.edu (research notes).](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBKMP6M8H/the-cascajal-block-iconographic-motivations-part-3-note-36)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0CYBBKMP6M8H 1. 15.[Magni, C. 2008. Olmec Writing. The Cascajal Block: New Perspectives. Arts and Cultures 9 (Barbier-Mueller Museum), pp. 64 to 81.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBM4A6J50/olmec-writing-the-cascajal-block-new-perspectives)cited 1 time here**SRC** 0CYBBM4A6J50 1. 16.[Freidel, D., Reilly, F. 2010. The Flesh of God. Staller and Carrasco (eds), Pre-Columbian Foodways, Springer, pp. 635 to 680.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBMC43AFC/the-flesh-of-god)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0471-3_26)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0CYBBMC43AFC 1. 17.[Wikipedia contributors n.d.. La Mojarra Stela 1. Wikipedia.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBNV00MQ9/la-mojarra-stela-1)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0CYBBNV00MQ9 1. 18.[Wikipedia contributors n.d.. Tuxtla Statuette. Wikipedia.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBP2T1QP1/tuxtla-statuette)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0CYBBP2T1QP1 1. 19.[Kaufman, T., Justeson, J. n.d.. Epigraphy Collection of Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson. Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America (AILLA), University of Texas.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0CYBBPAM0N5Z/epigraphy-collection-of-terrence-kaufman-and-john-justeson)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0CYBBPAM0N5Z Last edited 27 Oct 2026