<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<document>
<title>Rongorongo</title>
<authors>Wikipedia</authors>
<publisher>wikipedia.org</publisher>
<publishedplace>network</publishedplace>
<publishedyear>2010</publishedyear>
<edition></edition>
<category>Featured articles</category>
<section id="14625" fatherid="0" title="" lv="" priority="-1" level="1">
Rongorongo ( in English,  in Rapa Nui) is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. It cannot be read despite numerous attempts at decipherment. Although some calendrical and what might prove to be genealogical information has been identified, not even these glyphs can actually be read. If rongorongo does prove to be writing, it could be one of as few as three or four independent inventions of writing in human history.
Two dozen wooden objects bearing rongorongo inscriptions, some heavily weathered, burned, or otherwise damaged, were collected in the late 19th century and are now scattered in museums and private collections. None remain on Easter Island. The objects are mostly tablets shaped from irregular pieces of wood, sometimes driftwood, but include a chieftain's staff, a bird-man statuette, and two reimiro ornaments. There are also a few petroglyphs which may include short rongorongo inscriptions. Oral history suggests that only a small elite was ever literate and that the tablets were sacred.
Authentic rongorongo texts are written in alternating directions, a system called reverse boustrophedon. In a third of the tablets, the lines of text are inscribed in shallow fluting carved into the wood. The glyphs themselves are outlines of human, animal, plant, artifact and geometric forms. Many of the human and animal figures, such as 15px|Rongorongo glyph 200 and 15px|Rongorongo glyph 280, have characteristic protuberances on each side of the head, possibly representing ears or eyes.
Individual texts are conventionally known by a single uppercase letter and a name, such as Tablet C, the Mamari Tablet. The somewhat variable names may be descriptive or indicate where the object is kept, as in the Oar, the Snuffbox, the Small Santiago Tablet, and the Santiago Staff.

</section>
<section id="14626" fatherid="0" title="Etymology and variant names" lv="" priority="2" level="1">
Rongorongo is the modern name for the inscriptions. In the Rapanui language it means "to recite, to declaim, to chant out".
The original name—or perhaps description—of the script is said to have been kohau motu mo rongorongo, "lines incised for chanting out", shortened to kohau rongorongo or "lines for chanting out".Englert 1993 There are also said to have been more specific names for the texts based on their topic. For example, the kohau ta‘u ("lines of years") were annals, the kohau îka ("lines of fishes") were lists of persons killed in war (îka "fish" was homophonous with or used figuratively for "war casualty"), and the kohau ranga "lines of fugitives" were lists of war refugees.
Some authors have understood the ta‘u in kohau ta‘u to refer to a separate form of writing distinct from rongorongo. Barthel recorded that, "The Islanders had another writing (the so-called 'ta‘u script') which recorded their annals and other secular matters, but this has disappeared."Barthel 1958:66 However, Fischer writes that "the ta‘u was originally a type of rongorongo inscription. In the 1880s, a group of elders invented a derivative 'script' also called ta‘u with which to decorate carvings in order to increase their trading value. It is a primitive imitation of rongorongo."Fischer 1997:667 An alleged third script, the mama or va‘eva‘e described in some mid-twentieth-century publications, was "an early twentieth-century geometric decorative invention".Fischer 1997:ix

</section>
<section id="14627" fatherid="0" title="Form and construction" lv="" priority="3" level="1">
<section id="14628" fatherid="14627" title="" lv="" priority="-1" level="2">
The forms of the glyphs are standardized contours of living organisms and geometric designs about one centimeter high. The wooden tablets are irregular in shape and, in many instances, fluted (tablets B, E, G, H, O, Q, and T), with the glyphs carved in shallow channels running the length of the tablets, as can be seen in the image of tablet G at . It is thought that irregular and often blemished pieces of wood were used in their entirety rather than squared off due to the scarcity of wood on the island.Fischer 1997:382
</section>
<section id="14629" fatherid="14627" title="Writing media" lv="" priority="2" level="2">
Except for a few possible glyphs cut in stone (see ), all surviving texts are inscribed in wood. According to tradition, the tablets were made of toromiro wood. However, Orliac (2005) examined seven objects (tablets B, C, G, H, K, Q, and reimiro L) with stereo optical and scanning electron microscopes and determined that all were instead made from Pacific rosewood (Thespesia populnea); the same identification had been made for tablet M in 1934. This 15-meter tree, known as "Pacific rosewood" for its color and called mako‘i in Rapanui, is used for sacred groves and carvings throughout eastern Polynesia and was evidently brought to Easter Island by the first settlers.Skjølsvold 1994, as cited in Orliac 2005 However, not all the wood was native: Orliac (2007) established that tablets N, P, and S were made of South African Yellowwood (Podocarpus latifolius) and therefore that the wood had arrived with Western contact. Fischer describes P as "a damaged and reshapen European or American oar", as are A (which is European ash, Fraxinus excelsior) and V; says that wood from the wreck of a Western boat was said to have been used for many tablets; and that both P and S had been recycled as planking for a Rapanui driftwood canoe.Fischer 1997:483 Several texts, including O, are carved on gnarled driftwood.Fischer 1997:497 The fact that the islanders were reduced to inscribing driftwood, and were regardless extremely economical in their use of wood, may have had consequences for the structure of the script, such as the abundance of ligatures and potentially a telegraphic style of writing that would complicate textual analysis.Fischer 1997:382–383; see also decipherment of rongorongo
Oral tradition holds that, because of the great value of wood, only expert scribes used it, while pupils wrote on banana leaves. German ethnologist Thomas Barthel believed that carving on wood was a secondary development in the evolution of the script based on an earlier stage of incising banana leaves or the sheaths of the banana trunk with a bone stylus, and that the medium of leaves was retained not only for lessons but to plan and compose the texts of the wooden tablets.Barthel 1971:1168 He found experimentally that the glyphs were quite visible on banana leaves due to the sap that emerged from the cuts and dried on the surface. However, when the leaves themselves dried they became brittle and would not have survived for long.Fischer 1997:386
Barthel speculated that the banana leaf might even have served as a prototype for the tablets, with the fluted surface of the tablets an emulation of the veined structure of a leaf:

</section>
<section id="14630" fatherid="14627" title="Direction of writing" lv="" priority="3" level="2">
Rongorongo glyphs were written in reverse boustrophedon,  to  and bottom to top. That is, the reader begins at the bottom -hand corner of a tablet, reads a line from  to , then rotates the tablet 180 degrees to continue on the next line. When reading one line, the lines above and below it would appear upside down, as can be seen in the image at .
However, the writing continues onto the second side of a tablet at the point where it finishes off the first, so if the first side has an odd number of lines, as is the case with tablets K, N, P, and Q, the second will start at the upper -hand corner, and the direction of writing shifts to top to bottom.
Larger tablets and staves may have been read without turning, if the reader were able to read upside-down.Fischer 1997:353

</section>
<section id="14631" fatherid="14627" title="Writing instruments" lv="" priority="-4" level="2">
According to oral tradition, scribes used  flakes or small shark teeth, presumably the hafted tools still used to carve wood in Polynesia, to flute and polish the tablets and then to incise the glyphs.Métraux 1940:404 (See .) The glyphs are most commonly composed of deep smooth cuts, though superficial hair-line cuts are also found. In the closeup image at , a glyph is composed of two parts connected by  a hair-line cut; this is a typical convention for this shape. Several researchers, including Barthel, believe that these superficial cuts were made by obsidian, and that the texts were first sketched with obsidian and then deepened and finished with a worn shark tooth. The remaining hair-line cuts were then either errors, design conventions (as at ), or decorative embellishments. Vertical strings of chevrons or lozenges, for example, are typically connected with hair-line cuts, as can be seen repeatedly in the closeup of one end of tablet B below. However, Barthel was also told that the last literate Rapanui king, Nga‘ara, sketched out the glyphs in soot with a fish bone and then engraved them with a shark tooth.Barthel 1959:164
Tablet N, on the other hand, shows no sign of shark teeth. Haberlandt noticed that the glyphs of this text appear to have been incised with a sharpened bone, as evidenced by the shallowness and width of the grooves.Haberlandt 1886:102 N also "displays secondary working with obsidian flakes to elaborate details within the finished contour lines. No other rongo-rongo inscription reveals such graphic extravagance".Fischer 1997:501
Other tablets appear to have been cut with a steel blade, often rather crudely. Although steel knives were available after the arrival of the Spanish, this does cast suspicion on the authenticity of these tablets.

</section>
<section id="14632" fatherid="14627" title="Glyphs" lv="" priority="5" level="2">
The glyphs are stylized human, animal, vegetable and geometric shapes, and often form compounds. Nearly all those with heads are oriented head up and are either seen face on or in profile to the , in the direction of writing. It is not known what significance turning a glyph head down or to the  may have had. Heads often have characteristic projections on the sides which may be eyes (as on the sea turtle glyph below, and more clearly on sea-turtle petroglyphs) but which often resemble ears (as on the anthropomorphic petroglyph in the next section). Birds are common; many resemble the frigatebird (see image directly below) which was associated with the supreme god Makemake.Guy 2006 Other glyphs look like fish or arthropods. A few, but only a few, are similar to petroglyphs found throughout the island.
Image:Rongorongo-sample-en.png
Some of the more iconic rongorongo glyphs. The seated man is thought to be a compound.
(Readings from Barthel (1958). The captions in the -most column are merely descriptive.)

</section>
</section>
<section id="14633" fatherid="0" title="Origin" lv="" priority="-4" level="1">
<section id="14634" fatherid="14633" title="" lv="" priority="-1" level="2">
Oral tradition holds that either Hotu Matu‘a or , the legendary founder(s) of Rapa Nui, brought 67 tablets from their homeland.Fischer 1997:367 The same founder is also credited with bringing indigenous plants such as the toromiro. However, there is no homeland likely to have had a tradition of writing in Polynesia or even in South America. Thus rongorongo appears to have been an internal development. Given that few if any of the Rapanui people remaining on the island in the 1870s could read the glyphs, it is likely that only a small minority were ever literate. Indeed, early visitors were told that literacy was a privilege of the ruling families and priests who were all kidnapped in the Peruvian slaving raids or died soon afterwards in the resulting epidemics.Cooke 1899:712, Englert 1970:149–153
</section>
<section id="14635" fatherid="14633" title="Dating the tablets" lv="" priority="2" level="2">
Little direct dating has been done. Tablet Q (Small Saint Petersburg) is the sole item that has been carbon dated but the results only constrain the date to sometime after 1680.
Direct dating is not the only evidence. Texts A, P, and V can be dated to the 18th or 19th century by virtue of being inscribed on European oars. Orliac (2005) calculated that the wood for tablet C (Mamari) was cut from the trunk of a tree some  tall, and Easter Island has long been deforested of trees that size. Analysis of charcoal indicates that the forest disappeared in the first half of the 17th century. Roggeveen, who discovered Easter Island in 1722, described the island as "destitute of large trees" and in 1770 González de Ahedo wrote, "Not a single tree is to be found capable of furnishing a plank so much as six inches 15 cm in width." Forster, with Cook's expedition of 1774, reported that "there was not a tree upon the island which exceeded the height of 10 feet 3 m".Flenley -anddocsymbol- Bahn 1992:172
All of these methods date the wood, not the inscription. However, Pacific rosewood is not durable, and is unlikely to survive long in Easter Island's climate.Orliac 2005 On the other hand, glyph 067 (25px|Rongorongo glyph 67) is thought to represent the extinct Easter Island palm, which seems to have disappeared from the island's pollen record circa 1650, suggesting that the script is at least that old. The start of forest clearing for agriculture has been dated to circa 1200,Date ranges are 1200–1250 and 1180–1290. Mann et al. 2008 implying a date of the 13th century or later.

</section>
<section id="14636" fatherid="14633" title="1770 Spanish expedition" lv="" priority="3" level="2">
Several scholars have suggested that rongorongo may have been a recent invention, inspired by the 1770 Spanish visit to the island and the signing of a treaty of annexation under González de Haedo.For example, Flenley -anddocsymbol- Bahn 1992:203–204 As circumstantial evidence, they note that no explorer reported the script prior to Eugène Eyraud in 1864, and that the marks with which the chiefs signed the Spanish treaty do not resemble rongorongo.
The hypothesis of these researchers is not that rongorongo was itself a copy of the Latin alphabet, or of any other form of writing, but that the concept of writing had been conveyed in a process anthropologists term trans-cultural diffusion, which then inspired the islanders to invent their own system of writing. If this is the case, then rongorongo emerged, flourished, fell into oblivion, and was all but forgotten within a span of less than a hundred years. However, known cases of the diffusion of writing, such as Sequoyah's invention of the Cherokee syllabary after seeing the power of English-language newspapers, or Uyaquk's invention of the Yugtun script inspired by readings from Christian scripture, involved greater contact than the signing of a single treaty. The fact that the script was not observed by early explorers, who spent little time on the island, may simply reflect that it was taboo at the time; such taboos and the tangata rongorongo may have lost power by the time the Rapanui society collapsed following European slaving raids and epidemics, so that the tablets had become more widely distributed by Eyraud's day.Bahn 1996 As Orliac pointed out, Tablet C would appear to predate the Spanish visit by at least a century.

</section>
<section id="14637" fatherid="14633" title="Petroglyphs" lv="" priority="4" level="2">
Easter Island has the richest assortment of petroglyphs in Polynesia.Lee 1992 Nearly every suitable surface has been carved, including the stone walls of some houses and a few of the famous mo‘ai statues and their fallen topknots. Around one thousand sites with over four thousand glyphs have been catalogued, some in bas- or sunken-relief, and some painted red and white. Designs include a concentration of chimeric bird-man figures at Orongo, a ceremonial center of the tangata manu or the "bird-man" cult; faces of the creation deity Makemake; marine animals like  turtles, tuna, swordfish, sharks, whales, dolphins, crabs, and octopus (some with human faces); roosters; canoes, and over five hundred komari (vulvas). Petroglyphs are often accompanied by carved divots ("cupules") in the rock. Changing traditions are preserved in bas-relief birdmen, which were carved over simpler outline forms and in turn carved over with komari. Although the petroglyphs cannot be directly dated, some are partially obscured by pre-colonial stone buildings, suggesting they are relatively old.
Several of the anthropomorphic and animal-form petroglyphs have parallels in rongorongo, for instance the double-headed frigatebird 30px|Rongorongo glyph 680 (glyph 680) on the mo‘ai topknot above, which also appears on a dozen tablets. McLaughlin (2004) illustrates the most prominent correspondences with the petroglyph corpus of Lee (1992). However, these are mostly isolated glyphs; few text-like sequences or ligatures have been found among the petroglyphs. This has led to the suggestion that rongorongo must be a recent creation, perhaps inspired by petroglyph designs or retaining individual petroglyphs as logograms (Macri 1995), but not old enough to have been incorporated into the petroglyphic tradition. The most complex candidate for petroglyphic rongorongo is what appears to be a short sequence of glyphs, one of which is a ligature, carved on the wall of a cave. However, the sequence does not appear to have been carved in a single hand (see image at ), and the cave is located near the house that produced the Poike tablet, a crude imitation of rongorongo, and so themselves may not be authentic.

</section>
</section>
<section id="14638" fatherid="0" title="Historical record" lv="" priority="5" level="1">
<section id="14639" fatherid="14638" title="Discovery" lv="" priority="1" level="2">
Eugène Eyraud, a lay friar of the Congrégation de Picpus, landed on Easter Island on January 2, 1864, on the 24th day of his departure from Valparaíso. He was to remain on Easter Island for nine months, evangelizing its inhabitants. He wrote an account of his stay in which he reports his discovery of the tablets:Eyraud 1886
There is no other mention of the tablets in his report, and the discovery went unnoticed. Eyraud  Easter Island on October 11, in extremely poor health. Made a fully fledged priest in 1865, he returned to Easter Island in 1866 where he died of tuberculosis in August 1868, aged 48.

</section>
<section id="14640" fatherid="14638" title="Destruction" lv="" priority="-2" level="2">
In 1868 the Bishop of Tahiti, Florentin-Étienne "Tepano" Jaussen, received a gift from the recent Catholic converts of Easter Island. It was a long cord of human hair, a fishing line perhaps, wound around a small wooden board covered in hieroglyphic writing. Stunned at the discovery, he wrote to Father Hippolyte Roussel on Easter Island to collect all the tablets and to find natives capable of translating them. But Roussel could only recover a few, and the islanders could not agree on how to read them.Fischer 1997:21–24
Yet Eyraud had seen hundreds of tablets only two years earlier. What happened to the missing tablets is a matter of conjecture. Eyraud had noted how little interest their owners had in them. Stéphen Chauvet reports that,
Orliac has observed that the deep black indention, about 10 cm long, on lines 5 and 6 of the recto of tablet H is a groove made by the rubbing of a fire stick, showing that tablet H had been used for fire-making.Orliac 2003/2004:48–53 Tablets S and P had been cut into lashed planking for a canoe, which fits the story of a man named Niari who made a canoe out of abandoned tablets.Routledge 1919:207
As European-introduced diseases and raids by Peruvian slavers, including a final devastating raid in 1862 and a subsequent smallpox epidemic, had reduced the Rapa Nui population to under two hundred by the 1870s, it is possible that literacy had been wiped out by the time Eyraud discovered the tablets in 1866.
Thus in 1868 Jaussen could recover only a few tablets, with three more acquired by Captain Gana of the Chilean corvette O'Higgins in 1870. In the 1950s Barthel found the decayed remains of half a dozen tablets in caves, in the context of burials. However, no glyphs could be salvaged.Barthel 1959:162–163
Of the 26 commonly accepted texts that survive, only half are in good condition and authentic beyond doubt.Fischer 1997:Appendices

</section>
<section id="14641" fatherid="14638" title="Anthropological accounts" lv="" priority="3" level="2">
British archaeologist and anthropologist Katherine Routledge undertook a 1914–1915 scientific expedition to Rapa Nui with her husband to catalog the art, customs, and writing of the island. She was able to interview two elderly informants, Kapiera and a leper named Tomenika, who allegedly had some knowledge of rongorongo. The sessions were not very fruitful, as the two often contradicted each other. From them Routledge concluded that rongorongo was an idiosyncratic mnemonic device that did not directly represent language, in other words, proto-writing, and that the meanings of the glyphs were reformulated by each scribe, so that the kohau rongorongo could not be read by someone not trained in that specific text. The texts themselves she believed to be litanies for priest-scribes, kept apart in special houses and strictly tapu, that recorded the island's history and mythology.Routledge 1919:253–254 By the time of later ethnographic accounts, such as Métraux (1940), much of what Routledge recorded in her notes had been forgotten, and the oral history showed a strong influence from popular published accounts.
</section>
</section>
<section id="14642" fatherid="0" title="Corpus" lv="" priority="6" level="1">
<section id="14643" fatherid="14642" title="" lv="" priority="-1" level="2">
The 26 rongorongo texts with letter codes are inscribed on wooden objects, each with between 2 and 2320 simple glyphs and components of compound glyphs, for over 15,000 in all. The objects are mostly oblong wooden tablets, with the exceptions of I, a possibly sacred chieftain's staff known as the Santiago Staff; J and L, inscribed on reimiro pectoral ornaments worn by the elite; X, inscribed on various parts of a tangata manu ("birdman") statuette; and Y, a European  assembled from sections cut from a rongorongo tablet. The tablets, like the pectorals, statuettes, and staves, were works of art and valued possessions, and were apparently given individual proper names in the same manner as jade ornaments in New Zealand.Buck 1938:245 Two of the tablets, C and S, have a documented pre-missionary provenance, though others may be as old or older. There are in addition a few isolated glyphs or short sequences which might prove to be rongorongo.Fischer 1997
</section>
<section id="14644" fatherid="14642" title="Classic texts " lv="" priority="2" level="2">
Barthel referred to each of 24 texts he accepted as genuine with a letter of the alphabet; two texts have been added to the corpus since then. The two faces of the tablets are distinguished by suffixing r (recto) or v (verso) when the reading sequence can be ascertained, to which the line being discussed is appended. Thus Pr2 is item P (the Great Saint Petersburg Tablet), recto, second line. When the reading sequence cannot be ascertained, a and b are used for the faces. Thus Ab1 is item A (Tahua), side b, first line. The six sides of the Snuff Box are lettered as sides a to f. Nearly all publications follow the Barthel convention, though a popular book by Fischer uses an idiosyncratic numbering system.
Crude glyphs have been found on a few stone objects and some additional wooden items, but most of these are thought to be fakes created for the early tourism market. Several of the 26 wooden texts are suspect due to uncertain provenance (X, Y, and Z), poor quality craftsmanship (F, K, V, W, Y, and Z), or to having been carved with a steel blade (K, V, and Y), and thus, although they may prove to be genuine, should not be trusted in initial attempts at decipherment. Z resembles many early forgeries in not being boustrophedon, but it may be a palimpsest on an authentic but now illegible text.Fischer 1997:534

</section>
<section id="14645" fatherid="14642" title="Additional texts" lv="" priority="3" level="2">
In addition to the petroglyphs mentioned above, there are a few other very short uncatalogued texts that may be rongorongo. Fischer reports that "many statuettes reveal rongorongo or rongorongo-like glyphs on their crown." He gives the example of a compound glyph, 20px|The rongorongo glyph on the mo'ai pakapaka, on the crown of a mo‘ai pakapaka statuette.Fischer 1997:543 (Although this compound of glyph 002 7px|Rongorongo glyph 2 inside 070 15px|Rongorongo glyph 70 is not otherwise attested, it is formally analogous to other compounds of glyph 070.) Many human skulls are inscribed with the single glyph 700 8px|Rongorongo glyph 700, which may stand for îka "war casualty". There are other designs, including some tattoos recorded by early visitors, which are possibly single rongorongo glyphs, but since they are isolated and pictographic, it is difficult to know whether or not they are actually writing.
</section>
<section id="14646" fatherid="14642" title="Glyphs" lv="" priority="4" level="2">
The only published reference to the glyphs which is even close to comprehensive remains Barthel (1958). Barthel assigned a three-digit numeric code to each glyph or group of similar-looking glyphs that he believed to be allographs (variants). In the case of allography, the simple numeric code was assigned to what Barthel believed to be the basic form (Grundtypus), while variants were specified by alphabetic affixes. He assigned 600 numeric codes. The hundreds place is a numeral from 0 to 7, and categorizes the head, or overall form if there is no head: 0 and 1 for geometric shapes and inanimate objects; 2 for figures with "ears"; 3 and 4 for figures with open mouths (they are differentiated by their legs/tails); 5 for figures with miscellaneous heads; 6 for figures with beaks; and 7 for fish, arthropods, etc. The tens and units numerals were used similarly, so that for example glyphs 206, 306, 406, 506, and 606 all have a downward pointing wing or arm on the  and a raised four-fingered hand on the :
420px
Coding: The first digit distinguishes head and basic body shape, and the six in the unit's place indicates a specific raised hand.
There is some arbitrariness to which glyphs are grouped together, and there are inconsistencies in the assignments of numerical codes and the use of affixes which make the system rather complex. However, despite its shortcomings, Barthel's is the only effective system ever proposed to categorize rongorongo glyphs.Pozdniakov 1996:294
Barthel (1971) claimed to have parsed the inventory of glyphs to 120, of which the other 480 are allographs or ligatures. The evidence was never published, but similar figures have been obtained by other scholars, such as Pozdniakov -anddocsymbol- Pozdniakov (2007).

</section>
<section id="14647" fatherid="14642" title="Published corpus" lv="" priority="5" level="2">
For almost a century only a few of the texts were published. In 1875 the director of the Chilean National Museum of Natural History in Santiago, Rudolf Philippi, published the Santiago Staff, and Carroll (1892) published part of the Oar. Most texts remained beyond the reach of would-be decipherers until 1958, when Thomas Barthel published line drawings of almost all the known corpus in his Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift ("Bases for the Decipherment of the Easter Island script") which remains the fundamental reference to rongorongo. He transcribed texts A through X, over 99% of the corpus; the CEIPP estimates that it is 97% accurate. Barthel's line drawings were not produced free-hand but copied from rubbings, which helped ensure their faithfulness to the originals.Guy 2000
Fischer (1997) published new line drawings. These include lines scored with obsidian but not finished with a shark tooth which had not been recorded by Barthel because the rubbings he used did not show them, for example on tablet N. (However, in line Gv4 shown in the section on  above, the light lines were recorded by both Fischer and Barthel.) There are other omissions, such as a sequence of glyphs at the transition from line Ca6 to Ca7 which are missing from Barthel, presumably because the carving went over the side of the tablet and was missed by Barthel's rubbing. (This is  in the middle of Barthel's calendar.) However, other discrepancies between the two records are straightforward contradictions. For instance, the initial glyph of I12 (line 12 of the Santiago Staff) in FischerFischer 1997:451 does not correspond with that of BarthelBarthel 1958: Appendix or Philippi,Philippi 1875 which agree with each other, and Barthel's rubbing (below) is incompatible with Fischer's drawing. Barthel's annotation, Original doch 53.76! ("original indeed 53.76!"), suggests that he specifically verified Philippi's reading:
|300px

In addition, the next glyph (glyph 20, a "spindle with three knobs") is missing its -side "sprout" (glyph 10) in Philippi's drawing. This may be the result of an error in the inking, since there is a blank space in its place. The corpus is thus tainted with quite some uncertainty. It has never been properly checked for want of high-quality photographs.Guy 1998a

</section>
</section>
<section id="14648" fatherid="0" title="Decipherment" lv="" priority="7" level="1">
As with most undeciphered scripts, there are many fanciful interpretations and claimed translations of rongorongo. However, apart from a portion of one tablet which has been shown to have to do with a lunar calendar, none of the texts are understood. There are three serious obstacles to decipherment, assuming rongorongo is truly writing: the small number of remaining texts, the lack of context such as illustrations in which to interpret them, and the poor attestation of the Old Rapanui language since modern Rapanui is heavily mixed with Tahitian and is therefore unlikely to closely reflect the language of the tablets.Englert 1970:80
The prevailing opinion is that rongorongo is not true writing but proto-writing, or even a more limited mnemonic device for genealogy, choreography, navigation, astronomy, or agriculture. For example, the Atlas of Languages states, "It was probably used as a memory aid or for decorative purposes, not for recording the Rapanui language of the islanders".Comrie et al. 1996:100 If this is the case, then there is little hope of ever deciphering it. For those who believe it to be writing, there is debate as to whether rongorongo is essentially logographic or syllabic, though it appears to be compatible with neither a pure logography nor a pure syllabary.Pozdniakov -anddocsymbol- Pozdniakov, 2007

</section>
<section id="14649" fatherid="0" title="See also" lv="" priority="-8" level="1">
Phaistos Disc
</section>
<section id="14650" fatherid="0" title="Notes" lv="" priority="-9" level="1">
</section>
<section id="14651" fatherid="0" title="References" lv="" priority="-10" level="1">
</section>
<section id="14652" fatherid="0" title="Bibliography" lv="" priority="-11" level="1">
</section>
<section id="14653" fatherid="0" title="External links" lv="" priority="-12" level="1">
Category:Undeciphered writing systems
Category:Rock art

</section>
</document>
