Talk:Rongorongo

Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg

Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg has been deleted from Wiki Commons. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi a Kwamikami

Je vois que dans votre page decifrements vous avez largement utilisé les notes de Thomson sur le site Belge de Bernard Philippe. Cependant les traductions de Thomson suggérées par Alexander Tati Salmon sont à revoir. Quoique les notes sont phonétiquement viables. Voyez sur [[1]] www.rongo-rongo.com les chants de Ure Vae Iko, notamment le chant Atua Mata riri - Kwami au cas où vous douteriez encore que Lorena Bettocchi n'est pas reconnue par les érudits internationaux, un document prouve le contraire : page 247 du nouvel ouvrage de Catherine et Michel Orliac -Trésors de l'ile de Paques- 2008 Editions Leiris Paris 285 pages , je suis citée comme l'un des sept chercheurs depuis 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.46.9 (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi a Kwamikami

Je suis actuellement au Chili et les 11,12 et 13 novembre 2008, j'ai etudié les objets du Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Santiago avec deux assesseurs dont une archéologue de la Universidad de Chile. Je confirme que l'Item I ou bâton de Santiago a bien eté gravé en 15 sections distinctes. Nous avons donc determiné où commence et où finit la gravure des sections, ainsi que toutes les phases de vie de l'objet, depuis la préparation de la branche jusqu'à la grande fissure longitudinale qui casse l'écriture. Je vais publier cela tres prochainement. En ce qui concerne l'image de Rodulfo Philippi, j'ai repris toutes ses publications ainsi que ses notes archivées au Musée où il fut conservateur des 1876. Les numéros 12 et 13 sont donc faux sur l'image que vous avez insérée dans cette page. Je reprendrai a ce sujet, également, mon site internet, actulisant toute la banque de donnée de l'Item I. [[2]] A vous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.26.91 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi to Kwamikami : See discussion About Santiago Staff Item I -[[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.46.247 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lorena, I look forward to any improvements you may be able to provide on our knowledge of the staff. kwami (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi to Kwamikami, Jacques Guy and Steven Fischer

Bonsoir Kwami : Au sujet du baton de Santiago Item I, voici tous les renseignements qui peuvent satisfaire les curieux du rongorongo et plus... les futurs chercheurs. En ligne donc sur www.isla-de-pascua.com ce lundi de Paques 2009, 287 ans apres la découverte de la terre la plus isolee du monde, des linguistes peuvent prendre connaissance de nos etudes, de nouvelles données et du rapport adressé au Museo Nacional de Historia Natural of Santiago de Chile au sujet de leurs quatre objets ou Items G, H, I et Z- le fichier est sous Adobe format pdf [[4]]. Le baton de santiago item I, a dévoilé la direction de l'ecriture rongorongo du moins pour cet objet : de bas en haut et de gauche a droite. copyrights : recherches Lorena Bettocchi assistee de Nuriluz Hermosilla, Universidad de Chile. Enregistrements au Registro de la Propriedad Intellectual DIBAM de Santiago de Chile numeros 173 329 et 177 224 en 2008. Copyright des photos : Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle de Santiago du Chili. Tous droits réserves. [[5]] contient ma réponse à Jacques Guy... definitivement mais fermement avec courtoisie.

Hi Lorena,

I added some of your measurements to the article on text I, cited and linked to your paper, and mentioned that you believe that Is15 is a separate line. I agree that it is little more than an assumption (though a reasonable one) that Is15 is a continuation of line 13. However, you offer no evidence for it being separate (at least, none of your arguments strike me as constituting evidence), so I didn't go into any detail. kwami (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, vous devez vous deplacer... aller au Musee de Santiago. L'une des belles caracteristiques du rongorongo est le tracé en lignes droites, bien structurées, les sillons bien tracés. L'item I contient bien 15 sections distinctes. La 15e section n'est pas la suite de la 13e. Rodulfo Philippi, brillant scientifique, l'avait vu, ainsi que notre groupe de travail l'a constaté. Je jetterai une coup d'oeil critique sur ce que vous allez corriger. Attention, Kwami, plus de sottises au sujet de l'item I... il y en a eu suffisamment jusqu'a present. Si Barthel s'etait deplace, il n'aurait jamais fait cette erreur. Entre la 13e section et la 15e il y a un decochement de 0,8 cm. Soyons sérieux ! Depuis quand le trace du rongorongo ancien ressemble au sillage d'un serpent ? Je vous donne un conseil : sculptez-le vous-même sur un baton aux formes identiques. Et puis il vous faudra corriger aussi tous leux lieux communs de votre page principale... vous demeurez un lecteur de tout ce qui fut publié, et non un chercheur.

Sorry, Lorena, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your views. Get your ideas published and peer reviewed, then we can include them. Otherwise it's original research. I've already cited you on this, but really, according to Wikipedia standards, you should not be mentioned at all. Also, we can't just take your word for it: you should *at least* provide a photograph of the section in question. (Especially if it's also published.) Simply saying that the accepted authorities are wrong isn't good enough: You can have no idea what Barthel would have written if he had gone to Chile. Your claim sounds reasonable to me, but we don't publish the "Truth", we just write what we can verify with reliable sources. kwami (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kwami, vous etes hermetique á toute forme de nouvelle recherche. Heuresement que le gouvernement chilien n'est pas de votre avis lorqu'il me donne la permission de faire une recherche inédite et une demonstration de ce que j'ai trouvé devant un groupe d'universitaires. Leur QI est excellent savez-vous ! Nous avons tout repris de vos pages dans wikipedia. Vous avez tout mélangé. Mettez-vous au travail. Nous sommes trop peu de chercheurs sur le rongorongo : vous pouvez donc sans que personne ne s'en apercoive (sauf Guy et moi) vous arroger le droit de condenser en deux pages 130 ans de banque de données... quelle impudence ! Allez sur place et allez de l'avant au lieu de stagner. Pour ma part, j'utilise les outils modernes de communicatin comme Internet que je suis en train de mettre á jour et je publie egalement dans des revues. L'essentiel c'est de publier et d'envoyer la banque de donnees dans les ordinateurs rapanui. Bon courage ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.45.230 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You've just proven my point. Calling someone "arrogant" etc. because you are unable to support your argument is the signature of a crank. You need to do better than that. kwami (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi á Kwami : il y a quelque temps vous avez utilisé les photos de mon diaporama et celles des Orliac pour structurer votre page principale ; votre banque de données était donc bien pauvre ! Ainsi que votre bibliographie. Je répète : mettez-vous au travail. Il a fallu á chacun de nous une dizaine d'années d'études pour tirer quelques conclusions... Et puis signifier caterpillar devant un signe rongorongo, vous n'êtes pas sérieux ! Où êtes-vous allé pêcher cela ? Quelles sont vos sources ??? Autre détail pour Rodulfo Philippi et l'Item I : revoyez votre image. Où l'avez vous donc trouvée, avec ces 12 et 13 ? Les anales de l'Université du Chili, avec les dessins de Philippi sont á la biblioteque nationale de Santiago. Allez-y. Je n'y ai trouvé ni 12, ni 13 signifiant deux lignes différentes... Ce n'est pas ainsi que Philippi voyait le sens du tracé du prestigieux objet. Ne me dites pas que vos informations sont objectives. D'autre part, á Buenos Aires, aux archives de la Faculte de Sciences et de Lettres, departement anthropologie, il y a toute la volumineuse correspondance entre Barthel et Philippi á ce sujet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.45.230 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Then quote the relevant correspondence of Barthel and Philippi, rather than make the ridiculous demand that I go to Buenos Aires to read them. As for the sources, they're at the bottom of the page, where you should expect them to be. If you can suggest better sources, then do so. But to just complain that the sources aren't good, without suggesting any remedy, is silly. Do you have anything constructive to say? kwami (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lorena a Kwami : Barthel avait un certain sens de l'humour (caterpillar, symboles phaliques) ceci dit gentiment. Allez savoir ce qui se passe dans le subconscient d'une personne. Les recherches sur le rongorongo ont progressé entre 1954 et 2009. je vous répondrai dans la semaine lorsque j'aurai fini de structurer [[6]]. J'aimerais que le jeune Kwami, qui a écrit il y a un an que les scholars ne me reconnaissaient pas comme chercheur, prenne connaissance de cette page. Nous avons fait des progres depuis, non ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.45.230 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami, au sujet de son chapitre pétroglyphes

Bonsoir Kwami. Comme promis je reprends contact avec vous. Vous avez inséré une image au chapitre petroglyphes qui aurait un lien avec le rongorongo, mais ce lien est probablement tardif. En effet l'image reproduit les peintures et scarifications murales d'une grotte, habitée par un maitre du rongorongo tau, appelé Tea-tea. Il a vécu au XIXe siècle. Il faudrait que vous insériez des images de petroglyphes plus anciens et plus proches du rongorongo tels que Lavachery les avait répertoriés. Pour ce qui est de l'image que vous avez inserée, son explication, ainsi que rituel des vierges est expliqué sur http://www.ile-de-paques.com/tea_tea.pdf. Source : Clemente Hereveri Teao, anthropologue, descendant direct du maître Tea-tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.46.232 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting about the possible connection between the cave Ana o Keke and the Poike tablet Z. I always thought those petroglyphs looked rather crude. I started reading your website again, and immediately came across more disingenuous claims such that Jacque Guy "no es un investigador, pero un lector de libros sobre la isla de Pascua y el rongorongo." And once again your silly claim that Barthel "translated" a glyph as a caterpillar, and therefore that "tal vez alguien [¿Barthel?] se burla de los ancianos rapanui". He did no such thing: he merely illustrated some glyphs that in his opinion looked like recognizable objects, and made some guesses as to what they might be. He never said that was anything more than a guess, and certainly did not present the caterpillar as "traducido". (Besides, it was translated from German to French (chenille) to English, and something may have gotten lost along the way.) kwami (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

would/vs could

Article says "If rongorongo does prove to be writing, it would be one of only three or four known independent inventions of writing in human history" should probably be could rather than would given the #1770_Spanish_expedition section.Geni 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and made the change. Anyone is welcome to revert, obviously. —Giggy 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted without seeing this. I suppose you're right, though. kwami (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What oral tradition?

The bulk of what is called here "oral tradition" was collected by Sebastian Englert, who was fluent in the language. The earliest were collected by William Thomson, but he knew no Rapanui and his interpreter, Salmon, clearly took the mickey out of him, feeding him with increasingly unhinged "translations." Routledge collected some oral traditions but she does not say how, nor who were her informants and interpreters. The whole issue is clouded in uncertainty.

How do we know

This is a very nice article. I was just wondering: how do we "know" that it was a language? I mean, how do we not know that it was just decoration? Dharma6662000 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo goes into great detail on this. I agree that it'd be nice for this article to contain more content from that article, since the decipherment is probably the #1 item of interest with regard to rongorongo. Tempshill (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was originally one article, but that was judged to be too long. There's also a lot of fanciful speculation in the proposed translations. kwami (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent inventions of writing?

I have revised the lead in two respects. First, the note said that Chinese was "possibly" independent, but History of writing states it was independent without qualification and there is nothing I can find in Chinese writing or other articles to suggest that it is not accepted as independent. Second, I added Egyptian hieroglyphs as "possibly" independent. Although scholars generally believe it was created under the "influence" of Sumerian cuneiform (which may mean little more than Egypt borrowed the "idea" of writing from the Sumerians), there is no definitive evidence on that and others believe it is truly independent. See discussion and references cited in Egyptian hieroglyphs#History and evolution. Ecphora (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see my edits were instantly reverted, but the comment seems to believe that "Egypt" is included in "Mesopotamia," If so, that is incorrect; scholars view Mesopotamia as including the Sumerians, but not the Egyptians. Nor is any reference cited for the statement that Chinese might not be truly independent. Ecphora (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I never even used the word Mesopotamia. The Fertile Crescent includes Egypt, Elam, and Anatolia as well.

The question is how many times writing was invented, not writing systems. Egyptian, Sumerian, Elamite, and Chinese are all independent systems. The question was whether their inventors also invented the concept of writing, or if stimulus diffusion was at work. It's considered likely that the Fertile Crescent scripts derive from a single conceptual breakthrough, generally thought to be Sumerian. Therefore that could be a single innovation, which is all I'm claiming. The key word is "could". The question of Chinese has stumped researchers for a century; there's no known derivation, but the cultures were in long-time contact, and writing didn't appear in China until two millennia after the Fertile Crescent, plenty of time (a surprisingly long time, actually) for the idea to spread. There aren't many people who would put much money against the possibility of stimulus diffusion to China, though few would claim it's probable either—it's pretty much just a big question mark. Mesoamerica is a different matter: that is almost universally assumed to be completely independent. So known writing systems may derive from as few as two sources. (I'm not saying it had to be two.) In that context, the appearance of rongorongo on this little island is highly interesting. It suggests one of several possibilities: (a) it wasn't true writing at all, as has been suggested for the Indus script; (b) it was writing, but was inspired by the Spanish; (c) it was an independent invention, and therefore maybe writing isn't all that improbable after all, and it isn't inconceivable that the Chinese and maybe even Egyptians invented writing independently of Mesopotamia (though the timing is highly suspicious for Egypt). kwami (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you recognize, some scholars believe that Egyptian was a truly independent creation. References supporting that are cited in Egyptian hieroglyphs#History and evolution. So, this article should state that there "could" be as many as four or five independent inventions of writing, ie., Sumerian, Chinese, Mesoamerican, and possibly Egyptian (plus Rongorongo). Or, if it is not certain that Chinese is independent, it should state that there "could" be from three to five independent inventions of writing. As for Chinese, your argument is interesting, but I have not seen any references to support it. If references exist suggesting that Chinese borrowed the idea of writing, those references should be cited in Writing systems and Chinese writing. Finally, the "timing" of Egyptian versus Sumerian is not all that clear; both may have been developing in the fourth millenium. See Egyptian hieroglyphs#History and evolution Ecphora (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The general view in everything I've read is that Egyptian and Cuneiform (and Elamite) are likely to be due to stimulus diffusion. Sumerian is taken to be the starting point because it's just a tad older in the archaeological record (which of course could change) but also because its development from protowriting can be traced. But even if Egypt were the cradle of writing, the coincidence of three ancient scripts arising essentially simultaneously in three interconnected civilizations suggests that they are not independent. There's no proof, but that's what the general assumption is. As for Chinese, you'll see mention of this here and there, but there isn't much to say, because there is no record to speak of. Of course, there are all sorts of scripts which could be independent, but that's not the point of the passage. The point is that writing may have only been invented a few times in history, so that if rongorongo is another such case, it would be truly remarkable. That is, the point is about the low end of the estimate, not the high end. And really, what would the high end be? What about Vai being revealed in a dream? Do we say "they could have been as few as two to twenty inventions of writing"? kwami (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's the problem. When I read the page, I did not understand that the point was the minimum number of possible independent inventions of writing. I have revised it slightly to make that clearer. Ecphora (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Thanks. I should've said that to begin with. kwami (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing "known" also helps. Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Better Approach to Rendering the English Pronunciation in IPA?

The English pronunciation is given as /rɒŋɡoʊˈrɒŋɡoʊ/. The symbol "r" represents an alveolar trill like the two r's in "perro" in Spanish. It is sometimes used to represent the English sound of "r" in "red" for the sake of using symbols that most people are familiar with. But here it accompanies the Rapa Nui pronunciation [ˈɾoŋoˈɾoŋo], where "ɾ" represents an alveolar tap. If we use the specific symbol for the Rapa Nui r, shouldn't we use the specific symbol for the English r? The English r is specified with the "ɹ" symbol. Also, would it be better to replace the vowel "ɒ" with "ɔ?" The diphthong "oʊ" seems to indicate that it's in North American pronunciation, but the use of "ɒ" seems to contradict that. It's a featured article. It's best if these things aren't mixed up. (Ejoty (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

The English symbols are phonemic, not phonetic. They are undefined out of context. That is, [r] may be a trill, but /r/ is no more a trill than /♣/ is. The English is linked to an IPA key, which defines the values of the phonemes. The convention is a compromise between RP and GA. The same key is used for English in every WP article, apart from things like English dialect phonology where greater precision is needed. kwami (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that RP and GA compromise. My problem is that while the English symbols are phonemic, the Rapa Nui symbols are phonetic as they specify an exact sound. The intro is using conflicting approaches to IPA. I can't help but see this conflict as bad. Do you support the current form, or should we switch the English to [ˈɹɒŋɡoʊˈɹɒŋɡoʊ]? Instead, would it be a better switch to make the Rapa Nui /ˈroŋoˈroŋo/? (Ejoty (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

That's taken care of by using /slashes/ for phonemes and [brackets] for phones. I don't see a conflict. This approach is taken on every article that has English and foreign pronunciations, and hasn't been a problem. If it needs to be changed, we need to do it across the encyclopedia, not just on this one article. [ˈɹɒŋɡoʊˈɹɒŋɡoʊ] would not be English, but only a specific dialect of English. IMO /ˈroŋoˈroŋo/ is not acceptable either, because the symbols are undefined: the reader can only be sure what they mean by going to the Rapa Nui language article. In general, we transcribe salient allophones of foreign words, so the reader has some idea how it's actually pronounced -- not a big deal in this article, but it can be in others. The reason English has a different approach than other languages is that (1) readers are familiar with English phonology, but in general aren't familiar with Rapa Nui etc. phonology, (2) we're trying to accommodate all English dialects, so that we don't get either people edit warring over cultural bias in selecting one particular dialect, or adding a separate IPA entry for each dialect represented in our editors (UK /x/, US /y/, Ireland /z/, Oz /w/, NZ /v/, etc. -- it gets to be a mess), (3) unlike with English, a standard language is usually good enough for foreign pronunciations, and when a local variant is relevant, we can add that separately, because it doesn't happen in every single article the way it would with English. kwami (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, your idea supporting this approach is thoroughly thought-out and I'm sure there must be many around the world who agree with your conclusion. I'm also sure there are some articles with the same circumstances we're debating here. Unfortunately, this is the first time I was struck by the difference of phonemic and phonetic representation used in this manner, and I mainly read Wikipedia for the articles on linguistics and ethnic groups. Before I got the hang of IPA, how it works, and the phones outside of my languages, I had a really hard time figuring out what the pronunciations given in Wikipedia mean. Years have gone by, and I understand almost all the symbols I see (and understand the slashes-and-brackets dichotomy too). Even understanding this, I read the intro and thought, "Huh? Wait, what's going on with these pronunciations. Oh! I get it. It looks like someone clicked and dragged the two languages' pronunciations from two different sources." If it makes someone who is familiar with linguistics scratch his head, what does it do for everyone else? We read encyclopedias to learn the important information of any topic, which means we write articles for the person who wants to be introduced to Rongorongo, for example. We don't write it for those who know the complexities and ins and outs of Rongorongo, linguistics, and phonetics. I'm not asking anyone to change or defend this bit of the article anymore. Please take this as a very well explained complaint that I find something incongruous and strange, and would have been either more confused or simply misled by it a few years ago. (Ejoty (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Point taken, but it's really a larger issue than this one article. If you want to raise it at the IPA talk page, people might agree with you, in which case we'll need to change our approach globally. kwami (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

分かりました。 Thank you. (Ejoty (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Gv4 boxout problem

It looks to my eyes as if either the main image, or the images of individual sub-glyphs, is/are vertically inverted; compare the direction of the chevrons, or the placement of the circle in glyph 62 that is a subpart of the second-from-right glyph. I don't know well enough to fix it so I'm just leaving this note here FAO the knowledgeable editors. 82.6.108.62 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at Tablet B below that, you'll see all the chevrons point upward. I doubt this is a meaningful distinction—at least, AFAIK textual analysis hasn't suggested it is—so it might just be the preference of the scribe. kwami (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be the preference of the scribe, but isn't it even more likely someone just scanned the original photograph upside down (perhaps not knowing the thing about alternate lines of script being inverted) and we should flip the jpeg? I know nothing about the linguistics of Easter Island, but we are all familiar with the way images prepared for publication sometimes get inverted left-to-right or upside-down! 82.6.108.62 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think I may have just confused myself. In tablet B, you can see that chevrons on consecutive lines face opposite directions - there are actually some downward-pointing ones, look at the bottom three or four rows. Instead, comparing gv4 to the context from which it's taken in the boxout "closeup of the verso of the Small Santiago Tablet" opposite, it's inverted; as the text says that lines 4 and 6 are inverted, either both captions are wrong or the image on the right is showing the glyphs the correct way up, and it's just the little mini-glyphs in the boxout text below gv4 that are out of sync. I'm definitely not going to try and make any guesses about this! 82.6.108.62 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the second glyph from the left, which is a human figure. The head with ears (eyes?) and upraised hands (with fingers) are at the top, whereas the feet are at the bottom. This shows the line is right-side up: human figures nearly always have their heads at the top and feet at the bottom. kwami (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rongorongo & Mohanjodaro - A connection or just a co-incidence?

The rongorongo writings found at Easter Islands share very interesting features with the tablets and seals found at Mohanjodaro (in present Pakistan) according to some archeologists. I have some pictures of the writings as seen on these tablets and seals which resembles the writings of rongorongo. (I would like to upload the same in this section but unfortunately there is not any GUI in wikipedia for easy upload.)

I would request the members if they could throw light on the topic and explore whether this is by chance or some group from Mohanjodaro might have moved to Easter Islands during that period and introduced the rongorongo there? [the ancient epics and manuscripts alongwith the sacred Vedas have references of existing aviation during that time using aeroplanes called 'vimana'. Is it possible that they flew in these 'vimana' to Easter Islands?

However, both the writings have not yet been deciphered so it is really hard to prove through the writings themselves but they sure have some similarities.

I would request you all to kindly revert with your views.

Amit.kr.mishra (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost surely coincidence. See Decipherment_of_rongorongo#Fanciful_decipherments, 3rd paragraph. — kwami (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is picture of a banana leaf needed in a featured article?

Rongorongo tablets may have been influenced by writing on banana leaves like this one.

This is not illustrating any of the concepts discussed. It's just a picture of a leaf. Ufwuct (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It illustrates the similarity in form between the leaves and tablets. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

POV in sections 3.1 and 3.2?

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 under "Origins" seem to be written from a POV that assumes that Rongorongo was an independent invention of writing that predates Spanish arrival. It needs to be rewritten to remove this POV. Statements from Orliac, who obviously believes in the independent-invention theory, need to be qualified as coming from him rather than simply asserted as "X is the case" or "X is thought to be the case".

The following entire section needs to be removed or rewritten:

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. In addition, the glyphs could easily be crudely written rongorongo, as might be expected for Rapa Nui representatives writing with the novel instrument of pen on paper. The fact that the script was not otherwise observed by early explorers, who spent little time on the island, may simply reflect that it was taboo at the time; such taboos may have lost power along with the tangata rongorongo (scribes) by the time Rapanui society collapsed following European slaving raids and the resulting epidemics, so that the tablets had become more widely distributed by Eyraud's day.[32] As Orliac pointed out, Tablet C would appear to predate the Spanish visit by at least a century.

It is full of unsourced assertions that attempt to justify the idea that Rongorongo predated the Spanish. We can't do this. Either source the assertions properly and identify them as claims by particular people, or remove them.

Benwing (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes: splitting the paragraph above into two paragraphs, one giving the view rongorongo was inspired by the Spaniards, and one giving the alternative view.[7] DrKay (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Very few people think that it was introduced by the Spanish. Those who think the islanders did not invent writing generally believe that rongorongo was not writing, not that it was intro'd by the Spanish. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yours is a better organization for the section, though. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Rongorongo and Indus Valley

The following text was added by me:

The forms of the glyphs have been compared with those of other undeciphered scripts, particularly the [[Indus Valley Script]]<ref>[http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/325oldbooks.php A direct comparison of rongorongo and Indus Valley glyphs]</ref>.

Then promptly removed by Kwamikagami who says: "particularly" is a lie; the comparison is also crack-pot and not notable except as trivia.

Wow, throw your own personal assessment around as authoritative much? See WP:OWN. I don't see what the actual problem is. So, are you disputing that the glyphs depicted in the "odd" numbered columns are authentic Indus Valley glyphs, or that those depicted in the "even" columns are authentic Rongorongo glyphs? Or both? Bassackwards attitudes like "we're not allowed even to mention the fact that anyone has ever compared the two undeciphered scripts" for whatever lame reason, are what hold back progress in human knowledge. If you can't begrudge a mere mention of it for "ownership" reasons, this will be have to be appealed with wider requests for comment, to shed more light on the matter. 71.127.130.183 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We already cover the Indus comparison. It's an old crackpot claim that no-one believes, and per WP:WEIGHT it does not merit mention in the lead of the section.

Also, consider the idiocy of the claims in your ref, such as "South America was colonized from India both by the Pacific and the Atlantic routes, in the third and fourth millennia B.C., but most often via the Mediterranean and the Atlantic." — kwami (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One question

How I can correspond with Orliac and members of CEIPP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.41.225 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See CEIPP. There's an external link w contact info. — kwami (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl

Thor Heyerdahl got the book from one of the natives with an explanation of the meaning of Rongorongo. Jesper7 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Which book? — kwami (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In this book: Heyerdahl, Thor. Aku-Aku: The Secret of Easter Island. Rand McNally. 1958. He tell about the Secret of Easter Island. A Rongorongo - Spanish dictionary.Jesper7 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. If I recall correctly, he reproduced some stuff that Islanders had copied from books published by Westerners. — kwami (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The topic proceeds below. 195.249.232.63 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Do Polynesians Conceal Rongorongo Knowledge From Outsiders?

Paul Gauguin famously included eleven rongorongo glyphs in his painting Merahi Metua no Tehamana. In his interpretation of the text, Barry Fell (Howard Barraclough Fell) in ESOP vol 19 notes that the Tahitian . . content shows the script was long known in Tahiti . . concealed from Europeans. By this, Barry Fell implies that Gauguin did not pick up the script from a recent publication by Bishop Jaussen, a point supported by the nature of the painting, which pays homage to Tehamana's distinguished ancestry. Could it be that the reason why we don't have a widely accepted decipherment lies in this tendency of Polynesians toward concealment from outsiders? My impression is that Barry, who grew up among Maori children, was partly of Maori descent. He classes both Tahitian and Rapanui speech as Maori dialects, is this standard linguistic doctrine? -- His grandfather, John Barraclough Fell, built a railroad on the North Island of NZ using the famous Fell Engine for overcoming the steep slope of the Rimutaka Incline. hgwb (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Fell's a crackpot. No-one takes anything he says seriously. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, he was a textbook example of a crackpot. He used to propagate all sorts of speculation that ignores and is completely at odds with even the most basic and best-established methods and results of linguistic, historical, archaeological and other research, basic knowledge taught to beginning students. Or simply isn't supported by clear evidence. Or even sound logic (fallacious arguments are dime a dozen). Just to address the Maori question, I've never heard of any academic expert in linguistics who classifies Tahitian or Rapa Nui as Maori "dialects", that's definitely not standard linguistic doctrine (see Polynesian languages) and sounds like a typical amateur idea. (Factors such as that Maori is well-known, fairly conservative, i. e., fairly similar to reconstructed Proto-Eastern-Polynesian, and has a larger dialectal variety than other Eastern Polynesian languages due to its larger geographic area could lead an amateur to come up with such an idea, based on superficial comparisons and impressions rather than thorough investigation using standard linguistic methods.) It sounds a lot like calling English and Frisian dialects of Low German, or French and Spanish dialects of Italian. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

having spent a lot of time in Polynesia, it would seem to me that the most likely explanation for Rongorongo is that they were genealogies; aide-memoire for the reciting of 'whakapapa' - a natural tendency when you are so isolated from your origins. This would explain their precious nature and the fact that historically it seemed each prominent family kept one in their dwelling. It might be fruitful to see if anyone on Rapa Nui can still recite a genealogy and then try to correspond that recital with a Rongorongo board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.6.225 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly plausible. In the decipherment article we talk about a pattern that fits that. The Staff has been interpreted as a list of war dead. But C includes a calendar, so it wasn't just genealogies. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rongorongo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509072333/http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/rongo2.html to http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/rongo2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625101810/http://pozdniakov.free.fr/14%20paques%201996.pdf to http://pozdniakov.free.fr/14%20paques%201996.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625101918/http://pozdniakov.free.fr/16%20Easter%20Island%20english.pdf to http://pozdniakov.free.fr/16%20Easter%20Island%20english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rongorongo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408075740/http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/frame.html to http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/frame.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214174003/http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/easter/rock-art1.php to http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/easter/rock-art1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rongorongo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304200644/http://www.geographyua.org/faculty/easter_island_qr_2008.pdf to http://www.geographyua.org/faculty/easter_island_qr_2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl's Expedition

I can't understand why there is no discussion of an expedition to Easter Island in 1955-6 led by Thor Heyerdahl. He documents this for general readers in "Aku-Aku - The Secret of Easter Island" (George Allen & Unwin, 1958 )

He writes that he was shown a hand-written book of 41 pages containing rongo-rongo characters and a translation into Polynesian. He says: "The rongo-rongo symbols were then nicely set out in a column down the left-hand side of the page, and to the right of each sign its meaning was given in Polynesian" (p. 236)

The owner gave permission for the expedition photographer to make copies of the pages and "..thereby the irreplaceable contents of the book were saved for posterity" (footnote, p. 237 ) On pp. 238-9 two example pages of the book are reproduced.

Many of Heyerdahl's archives are preserved in the Kon-Tiki museum in Oslo, and the original photographs may well be there. I have no expert knowledge of the subject but have an interest aroused by a recent visit to Easter Island. Can anyone expand on this? Arcencielltd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Arcencielltd: It wasn't an oversight. I don't remember exactly, but there was a conscious decision to exclude it. See my response to the same question a few threads ago when my memory of editing this article was fresher. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl mentions TWO books.

I do not have Heyerdals book of 1958 in the English version, but in the Danish version of 1959, where the above mentioned pagenumbers are 185-188. The last page is 286.

The second book is mentioned on pages 230-232 (Danish version).

He got it from Juan the magician, and "it looked somewhat like the book I had seen by the village skipper" i.e the above mentioned one. It also contains one page with translations. It is also likely to be in Oslo, or the Norwegians can tell where it is.

The reason you give for omitting Heyerdahlks two rongorongo books, is it of Wikipedia quality?

Heyerdals book is widespread (very well written, AFAIK the first popular book on Rapa Nui, the one that made millions aware of the island and its culture). So in my humble opinion there ought to be a mentioning in Wiki of what he reports, and a more detailed explanation for why the 2 texts are omitted.

Best Regards Steen Thomsen. 195.249.232.63 (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Direction of writing

If we don't even know whether this is writing (in the sense of a written form of a spoken language), how do we know which direction it was written in? I don't say it's wrong, but I would like to know what the reasoning is. Mcswell (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There are several ways, including tracing how the author inscribed the tablet, characters that twist at the end of a line, squashed characters the author forced in at the end of a line where there wasn't enough room, and parallel passages between tablets. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography section

I would like to explore converting the "Bibliography" section to a subsection of the related "References" section. The relation is that referencing provides text-source integrity of the listed bibliographies. A second reason is that as a section it is usually located first in the appendices (recommended for biographies otherwise a works section) and this would avoid dual placement, confusion, and be inline with MOS:BIB. Otr500 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Otr500: I guess you were waiting for consensus? I don't follow your reasons (e.g. what appendices?), and our formatting followed WP norms at the time of FA review, but if those norms have changed I don't see why this article shouldn't follow. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry for the delay. This actually fell through the cracks on my reviews. I made the comments just to see if there would be a discussion and of course, being bold on an advanced article just invites a reversion. It is not so much that "norms" have changed. It has actually been around for a while just not such a big deal to cause any rift or affect the elevation of an article. We generally include closely related things in sub-sections yet concerning footnotes many times separate sections are used. Sometimes the "norms" is the way it is done supported by policies and guidelines and other times it may be just the way it has been done and not challenged. If the "norm" is the way it really should be done then maybe the corresponding policies and guidelines should be considered for change. Ignore should not have to be used. In this case, there is evidence that suggests some incremental changes would be in line with these policies and guidelines while not affecting the article at all.

I have had friendly discussions several times and boldly made changes to lesser-classed articles with no ramifications. It is a soft approach in an attempt to form article consistency to be in line with the wording of MOS:BIB, which states: "Bibliography" is used in articles to denote "works" of an author. That subsection actually states: "Bibliography" is discouraged because it is not clear whether it is limited to the works of the subject of the article. A list referred to as such is recognized as "an author bibliography". We have some articles that have a bibliography section meaning "works" and some articles that have a bibliography section meaning footnotes.

An issue that causes confusion stems from the fact that scholarly writings use the section name for references. Wikipedia has "Bibliographies by subject"‎, "Bibliographies by writer", and then "bibliography" for a list of sources‎. It would surely be inappropriate to use a Bibliography section for listing the sources in a bibliography article so we end up with inconsistency.

Of course there are acceptable "alternatives" but WP:REFLIST also advises using either "Notes" or "References". We run up against a two-part confusion when we find: Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection. The sentence uses Bibliography and "subsection", yet there is a practice of using separate sections for all related footnotes.

In a case like this where there are "Notes", "References", and a "Bibliography" section for footnotes it seems a solution would be nesting the groups per the suggestions found in Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes, or an alternate subtle changing of "Bibliography". By the way, we generally use the plural form when using footnote headings yet "Bibliography" is singular. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout does not include the alternate of "Bibliography" for footnotes so just more confusion.

I am not trying to make some great change just explore possibly making changes wherever possible, and with consensus, for the above-mentioned consistency. Incremental success is an overall improvement so not a bad endeavor. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Link rot: the collection of the Merton D. Simpson Gallery

Note 15 " In the collection of the Merton D. Simpson Gallery" seems to be suffering from link rot. The site seems to be some sort of weird computer generated placeholder site now. I am not sure how wikipedia handles this sort of thing on High-importance articles so I wanted to mention it so that someone with a better understanding of wikipedia protocol could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.73.145 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I linked to an archive, but unfortunately the images were not saved. — kwami (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible new text

Possible new text, the Rangitoki barkcloth. Ran the articles by one expert, who said this particular text "may have some merit", but that Schoch & Melka have published other "discoveries" that are obvious forgeries (even to my eye), so the credibility of their scholarship isn't very high. (They were duped by forgeries, I mean, not that they forged anything themselves!) Still, the provenance of this piece is only 5 yrs after the arrival of missionaries on the island, so it would seem plausible as an authentic text. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Several paragraphs are not sourced. How can we improve that? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also not clear whether images are free or not, for instance: File:Santiago-Staff-Compare-I12.jpg (not on Commons btw). A455bcd9 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: It seems like the unsourced paragraphs are still in the article. Are you interested in bringing this to WP:FAR? Sometimes listing an article there encourages others to address article concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Z1720, what does it mean to bring the article to FAR concretely? I'm afraid I won't have time to improve it myself in the next few weeks/months... A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: The instructions for nominating an article to FAR are located at WP:FAR. Basically, you would create the article's FAR page (outlining why you think the article does not meet the FA criteria anymore), notify relevant editors and Wikiprojects, and follow along with the article's progress for improvements if someone wants to save the article (ie, if someone fixes up the article, you would conduct a re-review and post comments for improvement). There's no expectation for you to make improvements yourself. When the article is at FAR, there are lots of editors who will help guide the article through the process. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: got it, thanks. Done! A455bcd9 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A lot of those can be sourced to Fischer, but I'll need to order it from the library again. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Why is this article so messed up looking, like it is still under construction or being tampered with? I think it's because some over-zealous editor has self-elected him/her self to demand some unreasonable citations all over the place and thus messed up the look of the whole page, which is otherwise quite fascinating reading. If you want more "citations" why don't you make one edit at the very top (I'm not sure what it's called but it's in the heading of a lot of articles asking for more sources/citations) and leave the rest of the page alone. Whomever you are doing this, you do not know how to use the proper code or syntax to add your "[citation needed]" demands to a paragraph without ruining the look of whole article.StyxinConn47 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Deleted tags. They were to guide Featured Article review, but the article is no longer featured. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)