Earliest Mesoamerican writing system? Mayan? Zapotec? Olmec?

[Roma_Victrix]

This is a somewhat controversial issue. The Maya script of ancient Mexico and Guatemala is known for certain to have existed in full form by about 200 BC, but some scholars push that date way further back into the middle of the 1st millennium BC. That would make it a contemporary of the Zapotec script and Isthmian script of the Epi-Olmecs, both dated to about 500 BC. Yet another element throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing, though: the Cascajal block, an Olmec-period writing slab dated to about 900 BC and containing still indecipherable written characters.

A basic summary of these writing systems is provided here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoam...riting_systems

So what do you guys think? Do you know anything about the most recent scholarship or archaeological findings on the matter? Which people/civilization do you think established the earliest written script in Central America?

[sumskilz]

Yet another element throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing, though: the Cascajal block, an Olmec-period writing slab dated to about 900 BC and containing still indecipherable written characters.

This is not an easy thing to date, and I'm always skeptical of dates. I found the first paper, and from what little they had to say about its context, it sounded like they had no way to securely date it. They claimed their evidence would be published in a forthcoming paper. As near as I can tell, it never was. I don't know anything about the local ceramic horizons, so I thought I'd look further.

Seems I'm not the only one skeptical:

The authors argue that the block is roughly the same age as the artifacts found with it, which they say date to the latter part of the San Lorenzo phase; they also note that the site is close to San Lorenzo itself. “There is quite a good deal of evidence on the probable context,” says Pohl, who accepts the conclusion. But those claims don't wash for some other researchers, who note that all of the artifacts were found out of context. “Once I owned a home near to Lincoln's log cabin, but that proximity didn't date my house to the same period,” says David Grove, an emeritus anthropologist at the University of Florida, Gainesville. “Likewise, the literally mixed bag of shards kept by village authorities doesn't help at all to date the piece.”

Adds John Clark, an anthropologist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, Utah: “Is the block associated with San Lorenzo or La Venta? We can't answer that definitively.” Like Grove, he favors a later date, when Olmec glyphs became more common.

Let me put it this way, by their methodology, I could have dated a Cheetos bag to the Fifth Century CE.

I haven't checked the others.

[Roma_Victrix]

Excellent work, Sumskillz! You're doing God's work. Or should I say...Huitzilopochtli's work.

It's truly a shame that the "archaeological" methods used in discovering and retrieving the Cascajal block were so shoddy. I'm sure it makes professionals in this field want to rip their hair out. Oh well. There's always the next incredibly unicorn-level rare hieroglyphic text dating from the 10th century BC to be found in Mexico! Seriously, this was bungled pretty badly then.

If a useful dating of that piece of evidence cannot be determined, what about the earliest Zapotec, Epi-Olmec, and Mayan materials at our disposal? It would be nice if some forum member of TWC who knows a lot about this field would weigh in here. You know who you are: a certain saxophone player, if you will. Go on, show thyself.

[conon394]

Excellent work, Sumskillz! You're doing God's work. Or should I say...Huitzilopochtli's work.

It's truly a shame that the "archaeological" methods used in discovering and retrieving the Cascajal block were so shoddy. I'm sure it makes professionals in this field want to rip their hair out. Oh well. There's always the next incredibly unicorn-level rare hieroglyphic text dating from the 10th century BC to be found in Mexico! Seriously, this was bungled pretty badly then.

If a useful dating of that piece of evidence cannot be determined, what about the earliest Zapotec, Epi-Olmec, and Mayan materials at our disposal? It would be nice if some forum member of TWC who knows a lot about this field would weigh in here. You know who you are: a certain saxophone player, if you will. Go on, show thyself.

"I'm sure it makes professionals in this field want to rip their hair out."

That is sort of par for the course in Archeology, History, Paleontology, Anthropology, et al. And that is just 'good studies', in earnest that run afoul of the massive sprawl of sub specialization and associated experts, language barriers that can see whole blocks of work go unnoticed, the infamous unpublished dissertation (*) or even published but only if you actually have physical access to say Oxford or the University of Michigan.And all that is before ego gets in the way, my wife is a Geneticist but her background of mentors can be followed to Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel - that discovery has seen PhDs walk out of here presentations or refuse to collaborate with her. Anyway even things that look solid can be deflated if you want - Numismatics are susceptible to all kinds of statistical attacks, Genetics and history don't look to hard at all the layers of assumptions you made or are unknowing making about Coalescence (although a critic certainly will).


Getting in science is no small matter (although often 'political'). My first thought would be at least aware of sour grapes. I'd be interested to know if it contra folks in the link have or will reply with notes to Science or elsewhere. Its still a coup if you will. Being skeptical is supposed to be a state of being for the audience however so my thought is cool see what happens.

* Interesting that is one area my wife thinks Historians or similar and the like give to much latitude to. She rather feels that should be classified as private correspondence that is also then explicitly available on request to be provided.

-----

sumskilz's link goes paywall (for me at least) here is alternative.

http://andrewlawler.com/website/wp-c...gists-1551.pdf

[Common Soldier]

This is a somewhat controversial issue. The Maya script of ancient Mexico and Guatemala is known for certain to have existed in full form by about 200 BC, but some scholars push that date way further back into the middle of the 1st millennium BC. That would make it a contemporary of the Zapotec script and Isthmian script of the Epi-Olmecs, both dated to about 500 BC. Yet another element throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing, though: the Cascajal block, an Olmec-period writing slab dated to about 900 BC and containing still indecipherable written characters.

A basic summary of these writing systems is provided here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoam...riting_systems

So what do you guys think? Do you know anything about the most recent scholarship or archaeological findings on the matter? Which people/civilization do you think established the earliest written script in Central America?

All the evidence still points to the Olmec civilization to being the oldest, and the Olmec cities are older than the Mayan, so logically, the Olmecs would be more likely to have first developed writing.

The evidence that proposes Mayan to be older is rather iffy, and subject to interpretation. Unless more compelling evidence is provided, the Olmec should still be given credit for first developing writing in Mesoamerica. The evidence so far isn't sufficient to overturn tradition chronology. It seems that when cities are established and civilization reaches a certain level, writing seems to evolve. Except for the Incas, I don't know of any major civilization that didn't develop writing eventually, either adapting an existing writing system, or developing their own. As I said, since the Olmec were the oldest civilization, they would be tne most likely candidate.

However, I don't think traditional chronology is so solidly established that new evidence couldn't overturn it, so we should keep an open mind.

[sumskilz]

It's truly a shame that the "archaeological" methods used in discovering and retrieving the Cascajal block were so shoddy. I'm sure it makes professionals in this field want to rip their hair out. Oh well. There's always the next incredibly unicorn-level rare hieroglyphic text dating from the 10th century BC to be found in Mexico! Seriously, this was bungled pretty badly then.

In this case, the excavation method wasn't their fault. The block wasn't in situ, when it was brought to their attention. It was pulled out of a mound by construction workers who were quarrying fill for road construction. So they asked the locals to give them whatever else they found in the soil, and they dated it by the age of the predominate ceramics. They further supported this by dating the top of the mound to the late first millennium CE, presumably by the ceramics, assuming that since the block wasn't visible on the surface, it must be older than the late first millennium CE. The problem with this is that you can't securely date anything by ceramics unless you have stratigraphy that is sealed. As construction workers were quarrying the site, material from all levels would have fallen down mixing together, if it wasn't discovered immediately, erosion would have furthered this mixing. Anyplace there is erosion, you will find ceramics from from multiple periods mixed together with modern materials. In the example I gave, I was excavating a Bronze Age tower on the side of a tel, the lower topsoil above it contained ceramics from the Byzantine, Roman, Hellenistic, Persian Period, Iron Age, and Late Bronze Age, as well as modern nails, an old glass Coke bottle and a Cheetos bag. They were stratified loosely not by time period, but by when they eroded down the the hill. The vast majority of the ceramics were Byzantine period, but this would never lead me to argue that the Cheetos bag was contemporaneous to the Byzantine pottery. What the predominance of the Byzantine pottery did suggest, was that the tel had its largest population during that period.

If they correctly dated the top of the mound to the late first millennium CE, then that is a reasonable terminus anti quem. It is that age or older. Based on ceramics, there isn't anything more that can be claimed with certainty. They made a headline grabbing speculation. They may not have ever published the context, because they realized they have no archaeologically valid context. That is, assuming the construction workers' story is accurate, which is probably a fair assumption as long as they weren't asking for money in advance.

[conon394]

@sumskilz

But you still seem to trending to the argue nothing side. Fair but with the same absolute standards you wipe away all die studies of coins as meaningless and any attempt and working out coin circulation as pointless and thus even most all coin dating evidence etc. In any case I say this w/o access to the original paper. So I guess my question would be are you seeing pure politics in this case out of Science - if the situation is as cloudy or poor to bad as you suggest the onus must be on the editors and reviews...

[Roma_Victrix]

All the evidence still points to the Olmec civilization to being the oldest, and the Olmec cities are older than the Mayan, so logically, the Olmecs would be more likely to have first developed writing.

The evidence that proposes Mayan to be older is rather iffy, and subject to interpretation. Unless more compelling evidence is provided, the Olmec should still be given credit for first developing writing in Mesoamerica. The evidence so far isn't sufficient to overturn tradition chronology. It seems that when cities are established and civilization reaches a certain level, writing seems to evolve. Except for the Incas, I don't know of any major civilization that didn't develop writing eventually, either adapting an existing writing system, or developing their own. As I said, since the Olmec were the oldest civilization, they would be tne most likely candidate.

However, I don't think traditional chronology is so solidly established that new evidence couldn't overturn it, so we should keep an open mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Harappan/Indus Valley Civilization didn't develop writing either, although they arguably had proto-writing (i.e. ideogram symbols for certain concepts, but not a full written script). The Mycenaean civilization of Greece arose around 1600 BC, but they didn't even have Linear B writing (based on Minoan A) until about 1450 BC and by then they already had towns, cities, palaces, seafaring trade, etc. The Shang Dynasty of China arose around the same time, 1600 BC, and yet there's no solid evidence for writing until the first specimens of Oracle Bone script dating to about 1250 or 1200 BC. Perhaps they wrote things down on more perishable materials before then, but this is not proven and for the earlier half of the 2nd millennium BC we only have proto-writing like the Neolithic/early Bronze-Age Jiahu symbols in China.

In that same vein, the evidence for a full script appearing in Central America before the Zapotecs and Epi-Olmecs around 500 BC does not exist, if we discount the Cascajal block. Sumskilz has made a pretty clear case as to why the latter is a faulty piece of evidence. Without data, without proof, without specimens to analyze, we can't really say much of anything with any deal of certainty. Or so I believe! I'm not up to speed with this sort of thing. I was hoping someone with a great deal of expertise would weigh in here. Still waiting for that saxophone guy. You know who you are.

In this case, the excavation method wasn't their fault. The block wasn't in situ, when it was brought to their attention. It was pulled out of a mound by construction workers who were quarrying fill for road construction. So they asked the locals to give them whatever else they found in the soil, and they dated it by the age of the predominate ceramics. They further supported this by dating the top of the mound to the late first millennium CE, presumably by the ceramics, assuming that since the block wasn't visible on the surface, it must be older than the late first millennium CE. The problem with this is that you can't securely date anything by ceramics unless you have stratigraphy that is sealed. As construction workers were quarrying the site, material from all levels would have fallen down mixing together, if it wasn't discovered immediately, erosion would have furthered this mixing. Anyplace there is erosion, you will find ceramics from from multiple periods mixed together with modern materials. In the example I gave, I was excavating a Bronze Age tower on the side of a tel, the lower topsoil above it contained ceramics from the Byzantine, Roman, Hellenistic, Persian Period, Iron Age, and Late Bronze Age, as well as modern nails, an old glass Coke bottle and a Cheetos bag. They were stratified loosely not by time period, but by when they eroded down the the hill. The vast majority of the ceramics were Byzantine period, but this would never lead me to argue that the Cheetos bag was contemporaneous to the Byzantine pottery. What the predominance of the Byzantine pottery did suggest, was that the tel had its largest population during that period.

If they correctly dated the top of the mound to the late first millennium CE, then that is a reasonable terminus anti quem. It is that age or older. Based on ceramics, there isn't anything more that can be claimed with certainty. They made a headline grabbing speculation. They may not have ever published the context, because they realized they have no archaeologically valid context. That is, assuming the construction workers' story is accurate, which is probably a fair assumption as long as they weren't asking for money in advance.

Well thanks a lot, Sumskilz, for ruining my carefully constructed narrative that someone was to blame and should hang for all of this. I carefully selected a nice looking noose and pitchfork and everything and I was ready to riot, but now you've spoiled all the fun.

The trials and tribulations of archaeology sound like a serious headache. Glad I'm not an archaeologist, but I respect the fine work that you guys do out there in the field. I salute you!

-----

sumskilz's link goes paywall (for me at least) here is alternative.

http://andrewlawler.com/website/wp-c...gists-1551.pdf

Thanks for sharing the link! And your personal observations.

[sumskilz]

@sumskilz

But you still seem to trending to the argue nothing side. Fair but with the same absolute standards you wipe away all die studies of coins as meaningless and any attempt and working out coin circulation as pointless and thus even most all coin dating evidence etc. In any case I say this w/o access to the original paper. So I guess my question would be are you seeing pure politics in this case out of Science - if the situation is as cloudy or poor to bad as you suggest the onus must be on the editors and reviews...

My comments were limited to the ceramics dating. Epigraphic dating is also valid, but you need to be able to anchor your relative Epigraphic chronology. Since this is an isolated find without solid parallels, their arguments are resting primarily on the provenance. I have no foreknowledge of Mesoamerican epigraphy, but it's my understanding that the debate within their field is regarding whether this is indeed writing or not, rather than where it fits in a relative chronology.

I did however find a formal critique on that topic:

In their Research Article “Earliest writing in America” (15 Sept. 2006, p. 1610), Ma. del Carmen Rodríguez Martínez et al. suggest that the inscribed “Cascajal block” is the first discovery of Olmec writing. Although we agree with the authors that it is possible that the Olmec did write, we have strong reservations concerning this artifact and its incised motifs.

1) Being found by persons unknown in a pile of bulldozer debris does not constitute reliable provenance.

2) The block does not fit any known category of Mesoamerican inscribed artifact; it is not a stela, celt, sculpture, or jewel. The heartland Olmec did not build in stone; therefore, it cannot be an architectural inscription. Indeed, there are many hundreds of similar serpentine blocks known at La Venta that were used as basal ornament on earthen platforms and in the buried pavements, but not a single one of these has engraving or relief carving. The authors' musings about the block being used for practice and repeatedly erased (resulting in a concave surface) are farfetched.

3) Known Mesoamerican writing systems are written either vertically or linearly (or a combination of the two, as in Maya glyph blocks); they do not randomly “bunch” glyphs as on the Cascajal block [c.f. (1)].

4) Many of the so-called glyphs replicate decorative motifs found on a wide range of largely unprovenanced (i.e., their authenticity is not proven, nor can it be proved) small-scale artifacts. None of these motifs in their original context has been identified as a form of writing. For example, “glyph” # 2/24/38/52 is found as part of the headdress assemblage on a number of the celts (nos. 116, 117, 118, 119) reproduced in Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico (2); “glyph” # 28/58 is found on another celt (no. 114), and “glyph” # 4 is inscribed on a stone figure (no. 47) again in the same catalog.

5) What we can only describe as the “cootie” glyph (# 1/23/50) fits no known category of Mesoamerican glyph and, together with the context of the discovery, strongly suggests a practical joke.

References
1. J. Marcus, Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient American Civilizations (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992).
2. E. P. Benson, E. B. de la Fuente, Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico (National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 1996).

And this is the authors' response:

We thank Bruhns and Kelker for articulating several issues that others have raised concerning the Cascajal block and for providing us the opportunity to lay them to rest.

1) The provenance of the block is what it is, reported by nonarchaeologists but still fixed to an area of a few square meters within a known archaeological site in Veracruz, Mexico. Many other bona fide examples of ancient writing have even less secure find spots, including every known example of Mesoamerica's Isthmian Script and Egypt's Rosetta Stone. Such objects will continue to appear in the future, and each will require careful study for evidence of reliability. We have done this to the extent of our ability with the Cascajal block and stand by our considered and, to most scholars, valid assessment that it is a key addition to the corpus of inscriptions in Mesoamerica.

2) The authors claim that “[t]he heartland Olmec did not build in stone; therefore, it cannot be an architectural inscription.” Then, in their next sentence, they cite precisely such architectural ornaments at the Olmec site of La Venta. We now suspect that the block may have served such a function. Such texts, especially from coastal Veracruz and the Maya region, characteristically are executed in shallow lines. Indeed, the celebrated La Mojarra Stela 1, found in circumstances much like those of the Cascajal block, was housed in the Museo de Antropología, Xalapa, for more than a year before anyone noticed the more than 500 glyphs on its face. It took some further time to see that an additional text appeared on its side, this on a sculpture under exceptionally thorough scrutiny (1). Therefore, we would not be surprised to learn that other previously discovered examples went unnoticed.

3) The signs form purposeful sequences; they do not “randomly ‘bunch,’” as Bruhns and Kelker assert. The patterns in the Cascajal text are spelled out carefully in our paper.

4) The block contains signs found on objects with provenance and others that lack it. Some of the latter have been known since the 19th century (i.e., the “Humboldt Celt”) (2). One previously unknown sign (glyph 19) appeared years after the discovery of the block in a secure archaeological context at Canton Corralito, Chiapas, Mexico (3). All known hieroglyphic systems in the world relate to pre-existing iconography or codified symbolism; new signs appear when warranted by scribal needs. Any hieroglyphic system that deviated from local iconography would be not only unique but, indeed, an inexplicable phenomenon.

5) If the “insect glyph” was a practical joke, the jokester was an Olmec. The motif is shown three-dimensionally in the diminutive Monument 43 at San Lorenzo, discovered and excavated by one of us (Coe) in 1966 and published by Coe and Diehl in 1980 (4).

We reject the author's specific criticisms and their implicit claim that the block is a modern forgery. However, we appreciate the fact that such challenges are the essence of scientific enquiry and that they eventually lead to truth. We still affirm that the Cascajal block is the oldest example of writing in the New World and among the most important finds ever made in Mesoamerica.

References
1. J. S. Justeson, T. Kaufmann, Science 277, 207 (1997).Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
2. A. Peñafiel, Monumentos de Arte Mexicano Antiguo (Asher, Berlin, 1890), vol. 1.Google Scholar
3. D. Cheetham, J. E. Clark, XIX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2005, J. P. Laporte, B. Arroyo, H.E. Mejía, Eds. (Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Guatemala City, Guatemala, 2006).Google Scholar
4. M. D. Coe, R. A. Diehl, In the Land of the Olmec (Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX, 1980), vol.

I don't have any opinion on this debate, because I'm not saying an unprovenanced artifact cannot be authenticated, but that an unprovenanced artifact can't be dated by its provenance.

As far as their defense relates to speculative chronology, I don't see anything inconsistent with this view:

Adds John Clark, an anthropologist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, Utah: “Is the block associated with San Lorenzo or La Venta? We can't answer that definitively.” Like Grove, he favors a later date, when Olmec glyphs became more common.

In other words, the very early date appears to be a claim based on the provenance since proposed parallels are evidently more consistent with a later date.

[Roma_Victrix]

My comments were limited to the ceramics dating. Epigraphic dating is also valid, but you need to be able to anchor your relative Epigraphic chronology. Since this is an isolated find without solid parallels, their arguments are resting primarily on the provenance. I have no foreknowledge of Mesoamerican epigraphy, but it's my understanding that the debate within their field is regarding whether this is indeed writing or not, rather than where it fits in a relative chronology.

I did however find a formal critique on that topic:

And this is the authors' response:

I don't have any opinion on this debate, because I'm not saying an unprovenanced artifact cannot be authenticated, but that an unprovenanced artifact can't be dated by its provenance.

As far as their defense relates to speculative chronology, I don't see anything inconsistent with this view:

In other words, the very early date appears to be a claim based on the provenance since proposed parallels are evidently more consistent with a later date.

Well now I don't know who to believe! The inscriptions or "glyphs" could simply be decorative motifs in art, but I'm not so sure. I find it fascinating that there could be such stark difference in views among scholars on this issue. Seems rather divisive given the texts you quoted above.

Again, does anyone know much about the earliest Zapotec and Isthmian script inscriptions and epigraphy? It would be interesting to know why some scholars think the Maya script predates these, even though most scholars believe the script to have formed no earlier than about 200 BC.

[Common Soldier]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Harappan/Indus Valley Civilization didn't develop writing either, although they arguably had proto-writing (i.e. ideogram symbols for certain concepts, but not a full written script). The Mycenaean civilization of Greece arose around 1600 BC, but they didn't even have Linear B writing (based on Minoan A) until about 1450 BC and by then they already had towns, cities, palaces, seafaring trade, etc. The Shang Dynasty of China arose around the same time, 1600 BC, and yet there's no solid evidence for writing until the first specimens of Oracle Bone script dating to about 1250 or 1200 BC. Perhaps they wrote things down on more perishable materials before then, but this is not proven and for the earlier half of the 2nd millennium BC we only have proto-writing like the Neolithic/early Bronze-Age Jiahu symbols in China. 

In that same vein, the evidence for a full script appearing in Central America before the Zapotecs and Epi-Olmecs around 500 BC does not exist, if we discount the Cascajal block. Sumskilz has made a pretty clear case as to why the latter is a faulty piece of evidence. Without data, without proof, without specimens to analyze, we can't really say much of anything with any deal of certainty. Or so I believe! I'm not up to speed with this sort of thing.

Most regard the IVC script as a form of writing, and the IVC civilization was in contact with the Sumerian civilization which did have writing. Eventually, the your evidence shows all the civilizations you mentioned did develop writing. The Olmec civilization arose about 1500 BC, and their first city at least around 1000 BC, and the first evidence of writing we have for the Olmec writing around 650 BC, which is a comparable lag to what we see for the Shang civilization, a lag of several hundred years after a civilization arises with cities before the first example of writing is seen is rather typical. Based on experience with other civilizations, around 650 BC is about when you would expect writing to be developed for the Olmec civilization.

As I said, all civilizations eventually develop writing, only exception is the Incan.

[saxdude]

Sumskils is right on both accounts, most debate regarding scripture among the Olmecs and Epi-Olmecs centers around wether it's writing at all, as well as the proposed interpretation of said writing, while lack of proper context limits any definitive dating process lest we somehow figure out how to date the very carvings on the stone. Can't say why they'd keep any potential follow up work unpublished, but my guess is that any further information is either inconclusive or they are waiting for the next great discovery that furthers definitively their case (or both).

Again, does anyone know much about the earliest Zapotec and Isthmian script inscriptions and epigraphy? It would be interesting to know why some scholars think the Maya script predates these, even though most scholars believe the script to have formed no earlier than about 200 BC.

It wouldn't be to hard to imagine why some scholars would think maya script predated both zapotec and isthmian scripts, only look at this forum and see how quick many posters can be to attribute earlier advances to the greeks.
All things said though, it's largely a matter of dates, and that their isn't a great degree of difference between them; the oldest Isthmian script is the Chiapa de Corzo Sherd dated between 450- 300 BCE, while the oldest mayan script was found among painted walls at the San Bartolo site in Guatemala dating in between 300-200 BCE. In either case both scripts are known to share a fair amount of borrowed symbols, which would coincide with the increase of trade among the Isthmus of Tehuantepec between 400 BCE and 200 CE, a period which happened to see a fair amount of trade disruption and diversification everywhere else.
The oldest example of Zapotec writing conversely is the "Monumento Tres" of "San Jose Mogote which dates to about 550 - 650 BCE according to Marcus and Flannery. The piece itself was found in situ lodged (it was a stone floor tile of sorts) in the entrance of a structure and while the context has been debated (it's been argued by Marcus Winter that the piece was possibly placed at a later date) I'd argue it's a pretty solid dating given that with it's removal it was also associated with ceramics of the period. The glyphs are pretty representative of later zapotec script.

It's also important to note that current mesoamerican Academia seems to be heading less towards a single Olmec culture or civilization that spread from the golf coast towards the rest of mesoamerica, and more towards a set of cultural traditions that developed and then spread independantly in several parts of not-yet Mesoamerica, who's maximum expression coalesced in the great sites of the golf coast. What that might imply towards the development of these independant scripts I'm not entirely sure.

[Roma_Victrix]

Most regard the IVC script as a form of writing, and the IVC civilization was in contact with the Sumerian civilization which did have writing. Eventually, the your evidence shows all the civilizations you mentioned did develop writing. The Olmec civilization arose about 1500 BC, and their first city at least around 1000 BC, and the first evidence of writing we have for the Olmec writing around 650 BC, which is a comparable lag to what we see for the Shang civilization, a lag of several hundred years after a civilization arises with cities before the first example of writing is seen is rather typical. Based on experience with other civilizations, around 650 BC is about when you would expect writing to be developed for the Olmec civilization.

As I said, all civilizations eventually develop writing, only exception is the Incan.

It is easy to say the Olmecs had writing and another thing to prove it with specific pieces of evidence, though. At the very least the subsequent Epi-Olmec culture of 300 BC - 250 AD had a writing system, and more than that, they utilized the long count calendar system. As far as I know the previous Olmecs did not have these, despite their other achievements. I could ultimately be wrong, though, and archaeological findings continue to overturn our assumptions. In that regard, Saxdude has a fantastic post:

Sumskils is right on both accounts, most debate regarding scripture among the Olmecs and Epi-Olmecs centers around wether it's writing at all, as well as the proposed interpretation of said writing, while lack of proper context limits any definitive dating process lest we somehow figure out how to date the very carvings on the stone. Can't say why they'd keep any potential follow up work unpublished, but my guess is that any further information is either inconclusive or they are waiting for the next great discovery that furthers definitively their case (or both).


It wouldn't be to hard to imagine why some scholars would think maya script predated both zapotec and isthmian scripts, only look at this forum and see how quick many posters can be to attribute earlier advances to the greeks.
All things said though, it's largely a matter of dates, and that their isn't a great degree of difference between them; the oldest Isthmian script is the Chiapa de Corzo Sherd dated between 450- 300 BCE, while the oldest mayan script was found among painted walls at the San Bartolo site in Guatemala dating in between 300-200 BCE. In either case both scripts are known to share a fair amount of borrowed symbols, which would coincide with the increase of trade among the Isthmus of Tehuantepec between 400 BCE and 200 CE, a period which happened to see a fair amount of trade disruption and diversification everywhere else.
The oldest example of Zapotec writing conversely is the "Monumento Tres" of "San Jose Mogote which dates to about 550 - 650 BCE according to Marcus and Flannery. The piece itself was found in situ lodged (it was a stone floor tile of sorts) in the entrance of a structure and while the context has been debated (it's been argued by Marcus Winter that the piece was possibly placed at a later date) I'd argue it's a pretty solid dating given that with it's removal it was also associated with ceramics of the period. The glyphs are pretty representative of later zapotec script.

It's also important to note that current mesoamerican Academia seems to be heading less towards a single Olmec culture or civilization that spread from the golf coast towards the rest of mesoamerica, and more towards a set of cultural traditions that developed and then spread independantly in several parts of not-yet Mesoamerica, who's maximum expression coalesced in the great sites of the golf coast. What that might imply towards the development of these independant scripts I'm not entirely sure.

Thank you for clearing this up! I have wondered what the earliest pieces of evidence were and you answered my question perfectly. Well, almost perfectly. You've cited Marcus and Flannery, but could you provide the specific title of a scholarly source or two that I can refer to? Many thanks.

Like I said before, I knew that our local saxophone player would come to the rescue on this topic.

[saxdude]

Could you not hear my dulcet saxy tones on the horizon?

You've cited Marcus and Flannery, but could you provide the specific title of a scholarly source or two that I can refer to? Many thanks.

This article is a bit old but mentions a concise summary of the earliest evidences of mesoamerican writing known at the time, including the monument 3 of San Jose Mogote:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...erican_Writing
Although it doesn't include Winter's interpretation which you can find in "The San Jose Mogote Danzante" (Cahn & Winter, 1993). Both will lead you to more indepth sources by the authors.
If you want something considerably more indepth regarding zapotec scripture you can get "Zapotec Writing: 2500 years of History" by Maria de los Angeles Romero Frizzi, which covers everything from the early evidence of zapotec writing at Mogote, the transition to Mixteco-poblano script in the late classic, to the adoption of Latin script in the colonial period.

If the Cascajal slab is legitimate I'd be fairly inclined to believe an early date as proposed by the authors as the potential script, while having some elements of later olmec iconography, doesn't really have any structure that could be construed as similar to later incarnations of the script, but could just as well be a collection of iconographic motifs.

[Ludicus]

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Are Olmec Scripts Chinese? - Sino-Platonic Papers (2017)
The author's name is Zhang He. Zhang, not Zheng

[Roma_Victrix]

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Are Olmec Scripts Chinese? - Sino-Platonic Papers (2017)
The author's name is Zhang He. Zhang, not Zheng

That's right up there with Sub-Saharan Africans starting the Olmec civilization.

Let's not give your readers the wrong impression about Zhang He (2017), though. Despite writing for the notorious Sino-Platonic Papers, he's actually doing due diligence in debunking the nonsense found in H. M. Xu's Origin of the Olmec Civilization (1996). Here's the abstract from the paper you shared:

This study is an investigation on four pieces of jade work of the Olmec civilization
found at La Venta, Mexico. It argues against identifying the design markings on the
jade celts (a type of ax-shaped stonework) as Chinese script, as has been proposed,
and it demonstrates that the design motifs found on the celts are identical with those
in many works of Olmec art. These motifs are the basic elements used to compose a
pictorial mask face. By providing a series of motifs with similar imagery to compare
with those on the celts, I demonstrate that the designs on the celts are the remains of
a typical Olmec image of a supernatural being with symbolic motifs. Some of these
symbolic motifs are Olmec symbols, well known from pictorial images, that developed
into a true writing system such as the Cascajal Script; they do not show any
resemblance to Chinese characters.

Could you not hear my dulcet saxy tones on the horizon?

Loud and clear, so much so that it cleared out the buffalo and shooed away the prairie dogs. The barkeep at the saloon also locked up his liquor cabinets and grabbed hold of his double-barrel shotgun. You can never be too careful when the Sax Man rolls into town.

This article is a bit old but mentions a concise summary of the earliest evidences of mesoamerican writing known at the time, including the monument 3 of San Jose Mogote:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...erican_Writing
Although it doesn't include Winter's interpretation which you can find in "The San Jose Mogote Danzante" (Cahn & Winter, 1993). Both will lead you to more indepth sources by the authors.
If you want something considerably more indepth regarding zapotec scripture you can get "Zapotec Writing: 2500 years of History" by Maria de los Angeles Romero Frizzi, which covers everything from the early evidence of zapotec writing at Mogote, the transition to Mixteco-poblano script in the late classic, to the adoption of Latin script in the colonial period.

Excellent! Thanks for the detailed survey of scholarly sources.

If the Cascajal slab is legitimate I'd be fairly inclined to believe an early date as proposed by the authors as the potential script, while having some elements of later olmec iconography, doesn't really have any structure that could be construed as similar to later incarnations of the script, but could just as well be a collection of iconographic motifs.

I guess we'll have to remain cautious about it until something else comes along. Archaeology in Mexico is turning up new stuff all the time, though, as you are well aware. It is exciting to think of what else can be unearthed. In your estimation, when do you place the date of the creation of the Long Count Calendar among Mesoamerican civilizations? Along with the practices of astronomy? Especially as it is linked to mathematics and calendrical science.

[Ludicus]

[QUOTE=Roma_Victrix;15591710]That's right up there with Sub-Saharan Africans starting the Olmec civilization. [QUOTE]
Let's not give your readers the wrong impression about Zhang He (2017), though.
Yes, they do not show any resemblance to Chinese characters, but...but...but...(there is always a "but")

CONCLUSION
There are indeed many similarities between ancient Chinese and Mesoamerican civilizations, too many to be simplistically ignored, and I believe there has been some kind of contact between the two worlds for a very long time.
But as to how direct those contacts were, and to what degree they madean impact on the local cultural development, the answers need to wait for more materials to bediscovered.

Neither diffusionism nor isolationism alone is adequate to describe these complicated cultural phenomena. A genetic theory may render an alternative interpretation, which suggests heredity from some parent cultures in Asia and adaptation to the local environments in the Americas over a long period of time (Grieder 1982). In the case of the Olmec and China, I would propose a filtered influence rather than a direct impact.

"Similarities are too many", "there has been some kind of contact for a very long time "... "a genetic theory may render an alternative interpretation".
To sum up, "a filtered influence"...hmm.

[Roma_Victrix]

Yes, they do not show any resemblance to Chinese characters, but...but...but...(there is always a "but")

"Similarities are too many", "there has been some kind of contact for a very long time "... "a genetic theory may render an alternative interpretation".
To sum up, "a filtered influence"...hmm.

Well then, I guess I should have kept reading until his conclusion. His abstract led me astray! Seriously, though, it is ridiculous to think the Zhou Dynasty or Warring States of China had any influence on the events or peoples of contemporary Central America, including the Olmec civilization. The Chinese hadn't even discovered Central Asia, South Asia, and Persia until the 2nd century BC during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, so it's quite a stretch to think they were doing anything across the Pacific Ocean in the Americas.

[Common Soldier]

[QUOTE=Ludicus;15592213]

That's right up there with Sub-Saharan Africans starting the Olmec civilization.

Let's not give your readers the wrong impression about Zhang He (2017), though.
Yes, they do not show any resemblance to Chinese characters, but...but...but...(there is always a "but")


"Similarities are too many", "there has been some kind of contact for a very long time "... "a genetic theory may render an alternative interpretation".
To sum up, "a filtered influence"...hmm.

His conclusion seems to come out of nowhere, and does not match the analysis in the rest of the article. His article shows there really isn't any similarity been Chinese writing and alleged Olmec script, yet with no justification in his article he asserts in the conclusion the similarities between Olmec and Chinese writing are too great to be dismissed. It would have been nice to know what evidence he had in mind when he made this claim, it wasn't in is article.

When you look at the 2 cultures

1. Olmecs created carved stone heads with African looking features. Chinese did not.

2. Olmec built ball courts. No evidence the Chinese did.

3. Olmec raised maize squash, beans, manioc, sweet potatoes and tomatoes, and had dog and sometimes deer for meet. The Chinese raised millet, wheat, and rice, and had pigs, chickens, and oxen, and mules. Not sure why the descendants of the Olmec had to wait 2100 years until the Spanish brought them pigs. chickens and mules, and the Chinese had to wait 2100 years before the Spanish brought them sweat potatoes, peanuts, maize. I guess the Olmec weren't able to figure out on their own that chickens and pigs were good to eat, and the Chinese were not able to figure out on their own that maize, sweat potatoes, tomatoes were good to eat, it took the Spanish to teach both of them.

Other than not having any food in common except dog, and some kind of fish, the ancient Chinese and Olmec diet was exactly the same.

4. The Olmec used largely stone tools, the Chinese were skilled in making bronze tools and artifacts. Olmec frequently used obsidian knives, the Chinese as far as I can tell did not. They did both use stone and make pottery.

So, it is clear the Olmec and ancient Chinese people were one and the same. The Olmec and modern Chinese both eat dog, and the Olmec and ancient Chinese both made pottery, so it clearly can't be denied they are the same, the similarities are too great. They also both breathed air and were mammals too. That coincidence is too great to ignore!

[saxdude]

I guess we'll have to remain cautious about it until something else comes along. Archaeology in Mexico is turning up new stuff all the time, though, as you are well aware. It is exciting to think of what else can be unearthed. In your estimation, when do you place the date of the creation of the Long Count Calendar among Mesoamerican civilizations? Along with the practices of astronomy? Especially as it is linked to mathematics and calendrical science.

Tons of stuff is coming out all the time which is great, there is never a subject that lacks for more research, even Tenochtitlan itself, archaeological concerns such as politics and funding not withstanding. Ecological conditions sadly don't lend themselves too well to preserving written documents such as codexes but a surprising amount keep finding a way into the public, and I don't doubt a lot are in the hands of private collectors or the vaults of some museum.

Regarding the creation of the long calender, it actually seems to coincide (perhaps unsurprisingly) with the development of writing among the Isthmus of Tehuantepec trading corridor (between the epiolmecs and the maya) since the earliest examples belong to a Stela located in Chiapa de Corzo where if you recall is also the location of the earliest evidence of epiolmec scripture. For context, the site itself was occupied since 1200 BCE but rose to prominance around 700-500 BCE, and continued on till around 400-500 CE likely following the decline of Teotihuacan and the arrival/invasion of the Chiapanec peoples. The sherd I mentioned before was dated in situ (if I recall correctly) to around 450- 300 BCE, while the stela itself (which is in fact a wall panel, but nevermind that) has a calenderic date that has been interpreted to be either December 6th of the year 36 BCE or October 9th
of the year 182 CE. The ancient city itself has some pretty outstanding features such as one of the first "properly mesoamerican" palace complexes, as well as the first pyramidal tomb of Mesoamerica (not that pyramidal tombs are particularly common but seem to be a feature of the region).
Conversely, southeast of Chiapa de Corzo was the ancient city of Takalik Abaj in Guatemala, which was occupied from 900 BCE to the end of the Postclassic, and contains (specific to the discussion) a Stelae with a partial inscription and three possible interpretations, 236 BCE being the earliest and 19 BCE the latest. I don't have any sources at hand that can ilucidate the context of the Stelae as it seems to be subject of some debate, but it represents the transition of power between one ruler and the next. The Stelae 5 contains a similar message.

It's important to note that both sites have elements of both "the olmec" and the Maya, while the latter shows a fairly clear transition into a more Maya dominant cultural phase (with declining but still present olmec elements). In contrast, San Jose Mogote (the Zapotec site) shows no indication of the long count (which isn't to say it didn't exist), but instead shows a well defined 365 day calendar and examples of the calender round (so the 260 ritual calendar as well.
I'm not really prepared to make a statement as to when any of these calenders began to develop, but I think it's fair to speculate that their creation might predate these examples by a mid to wide margin, and in parallel, so might writing.

There are indeed many similarities between ancient Chinese and Mesoamerican civilizations, too many to be simplistically ignored, and I believe there has been some kind of contact between the two worlds for a very long time.
But as to how direct those contacts were, and to what degree they madean impact on the local cultural development, the answers need to wait for more materials to bediscovered.

Neither diffusionism nor isolationism alone is adequate to describe these complicated cultural phenomena. A genetic theory may render an alternative interpretation, which suggests heredity from some parent cultures in Asia and adaptation to the local environments in the Americas over a long period of time (Grieder 1982). In the case of the Olmec and China, I would propose a filtered influence rather than a direct impact.

That's a hell of a leap to make after having written that none of the Olmec scripture even passingly resembles chinese script in any of it's forms. I can't even begin to imagine what similarities the dude can imagine existing between both civilizations that the resemblance can't be attributed to simple coincidence.

Olmecs created carved stone heads with African looking features

I mean, if you've ever met a native from southern Mexico and the Golf Coast then the features on the olmec heads look very much mesoamerican. Unless some of the possible oceanic people's that traveled into the americas managed to hold out in pocket populations along the golf coast long enough to not be absorbed by the Clovis and other bering strait traveling people, then I'd refrain from saying african looking features, and even then.