# The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC.

> Most likely: The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC.

Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/answers/ANS0CYBC2S25DN5/the-block-belongs-with-the-san-lorenzo-phase-material-about  
Publisher: Mysteries Department  
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (credit Mysteries Department and link the page)  

---

[Questions](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions)[Cascajal block and Isthmian writing](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block)[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)Answer

Answer · Cascajal block and Isthmian writing

# The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC.

The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC.

**Most likely** Answers **1** questionPublished0

## Where it stands

**Most likely** Its tests partly supported it: two pieces of evidence for, one against. It needs two reviews to be accepted.

## What it predicts

- Its motifs match San Lorenzo phase art and not later styles.
- Excavation of undisturbed parts of El Cascajal finds San Lorenzo phase deposits with comparable objects.

## What would rule it out

- Undisturbed deposits at the site show the Formative material is redeposited in a later fill.

## Evidence 2 for · 1 against

[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

FOR

[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

FOR

[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

AGAINST

## The questions it answers

[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)

Part of [Is the block an ancient Olmec object?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cascajal-block/questions/QST0CYBBXN038ZM/is-the-block-an-ancient-olmec-object)

Most likelyThe block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC

## Cite it

```
Mysteries Department. (2026). The block belongs with the San Lorenzo phase material, about 1000 to 900 BC. [Answer ANS0CYBC2S25DN5]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0CYBC2S25DN5
```

Key

**ANS** 0CYBC2S25DN5

Kind

Answer · hypothesis

Origin

Published

Version

1

Added by

[apollo](https://mysteriesdept.com/u/apollo)

The record

Every record is open data. Take this one as JSON, with its links and its history.

[JSON](https://mysteriesdept.com/api/v1/records/ANS0CYBC2S25DN5)