Is the Cascajal inscription writing?
Most likely: the signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of languageAhead on the evidence, not yet confirmed. It needs two reviews to be accepted.
Where it stands
Three answers have been proposed. The block carries a text in an Olmec script, recording language, probably logosyllabic. leads, with evidence 2 for, 2 against: partly supported by its tests. Two are still possible. Of the one narrower question under it, none is answered yet.
Answers 3
History
- Rodríguez Martínez et al. puts forward: the block carries a text in an Olmec script, recording language, probably logosyllabic.
- Rodríguez Martínez et al.: 62 signs from about 28 forms include repeated signs and repeated sequences.For: The block carries a text in an Olmec script, recording language, probably logosyllabic.
- Bruhns & Kelker: the signs bunch without the linear layout of a script.Against: The block carries a text in an Olmec script, recording language, probably logosyllabic.
- Bruhns & Kelker: several signs had been read as decoration on other Olmec objects.For: The signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of language.
- Freidel & Reilly puts forward: the signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of language.
- Mora-Marín: sign co-occurrence irregularities are consistent with logosyllabic spelling; a repeated PELT-PAW pair is…For: The block carries a text in an Olmec script, recording language, probably logosyllabic.
- Mora-Marín: the signs match motifs in Joralemon's catalogue of Olmec art.For: The signs are a ritual arrangement of sacred images in Olmec iconography, not a record of language.
- Asked on this site