VOLUME 126 No.1 MARCH 2017
ALLOGRAPHS, GRAPHIC VARIANTS AND ICONIC
FORMULAE IN THE KOHAU RONGORONGO SCRIPT OF
RAPA NUI (EASTER ISLAND)
ALBERT DAVLETSHIN
Russian State University for the Humanities
Ho‘okauhua Hina-a-ke-ahi, hānau he moa,
He huamoa ke keiki a Hina
“Hina-of-the-Fire conceived, a fowl was born,
The child of Hina was delivered in the shape of an egg”
(Kumulipo, lines 1990-1991 in Beckwith 1951)
Dedicated to the memory of Boris Kudrjavtzev whose
discoveries gave birth to this work.1
The Kohau Rongorongo script of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) remains
undeciphered. It has been suggested that the script is an invention inspired
by early contacts with European visitors (Emory 1968: 154). Nevertheless,
the unique direction of writing, sometimes termed “double” or “reverse
boustrophedon”, and the logosyllabic nature of the script evidencing use
of logographic signs, syllabic signs and phonetic complements (Davletshin
2012a, 2012b), make the hypothesis of a direct borrowing improbable.
Emphatically, none of numerous pictorial signs of Kohau Rongorongo depict
expected European objects such as ships, hats and knives. This observation
strongly suggests that the invention of the script took place in pre-contact
times. It also makes highly unlikely the hypothesis of an indirect borrowing
based on observations of Europeans who wrote in the presence of islanders.
After decipherment of the script scholars will have at their disposal a unique
source of information about the pre-contact culture and language of Rapa Nui
(referred to by linguists as Rapanui) and Oceania in general as the script is the
only known writing system of Oceania that pre-dates the arrival of Europeans.
Along with the Near East, the Far East and Mesoamerica, Rapa Nui seems
to be one of three or four places where writing was independently invented
by humankind.2 Thus, decipherment of the Kohau Rongorongo script would
signiicantly contribute to development of the typology of writing systems.
Importantly, the surviving texts are of considerable length, around 12,000
glyphs in total. The size of the corpus implies that the writing system can
be deciphered. Here glyphs are writing units separated by spaces. The total
length of the texts in signs is considerably larger. Without doubt one of the
Journal of the Polynesian Society, 2017, 126 (1): 61-92;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15286/jps.126.1.61-92
62
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
main reasons why the Kohau Rongorongo script has not yet been deciphered
is its intricate graphic system, a system with signs of a highly pictorial
nature and without recognised word-dividers. Kohau Rongorongo signs are
frequently combined to form complex ligatures, which also complicates
graphic analysis of the script.
Graphic analysis is crucial for further development of Rongorongo studies.
Nowadays, diferent authors give quite diferent estimations of the total
number of individual signs used in the surviving texts. In his seminal work,
Boris Kudrjavtzev (1949) detected 427 signs in two texts alone, the Great St
Petersburg Tablet and the Small St Petersburg Tablet. He also presented graphic
variants for some of the identiied signs. Thomas Barthel’s (1958) catalogue
developed a classiication scheme with 799 positions, some 190 of which
remained empty. In a later publication Barthel (1971: 1170) indicated that if
one counts only those signs that occur at least three times, 322 signs remain,
and if one searches for the simplest graphical elements that cannot be further
analysed one obtains a basic inventory of approximately 120 fundamental
constituents. It should be noted that it is diicult to reconcile the two claims
made by Barthel (1971: 1170), because the simplest graphical elements that
cannot be further analysed are individual signs. The most recent catalogue
(Pozdniakov and Pozdniakov 2007: 8) comprises 52 signs that are considered
to account for 99.7% of all the texts. These estimations difer considerably in
size (322, 120 and 52 signs). The consequences of such diferences are dramatic
because diferent systems of writing make use of diferent numbers of signs
(see for example, Champollion 1822; Friedrich 1954; Kondratov 1969). The
number of signs in an alphabetical system is about the number of phonemes in
a language, for which the writing system was developed. The sign inventory
of an alphabetical system would consist of a couple of dozens of independent
units—the expected number depends on the particular language. For the
Rapanui language, with its ten consonants and ive vowels, the alphabetic
system is expected to have 15 independent signs, which is deinitely not the
case for the Kohau Rongorongo script. In a syllabic system, this number can
be equal to the number of independent syllables found in the language, though
commonly only syllables of a certain type are represented. The number of
syllables in Rapanui is 54, taking into account the absence of the syllable vu
in the language (Fedorova 1963: 87). Logosyllabic writing systems show even
larger inventories of signs, around several hundred, because they possess at
least two functional types of signs—phonetic signs (those that indicate abstract
sequences of sounds) and word-signs (those that spell words and indicate their
lexical meanings). Boris Kudrjavtzev’s tables and Thomas Barthel’s catalogue
imply a pronouncedly logographic nature for the Kohau Rongorongo script,
even for those who reasonably believe that purely logographic writing cannot
exist. At the same time, Igor and Konstantin Pozdniakovs’ catalogue evidences
Albert Davletshin
63
a syllabic writing system. Neither Barthel’s nor the Pozdniakovs’ catalogue
explicitly presents graphic analysis of individual signs, evidently due to a
lack of space. Remarkably, the relatively recent voluminous compendium on
the script of Easter Island, which is 774 pages long (Fischer 1997), neither
includes a catalogue of signs nor a chapter on graphic analysis.
Paradoxical divergences of counts between diferent scholars in the ield are
easy to understand: what one scholar considers as two diferent signs, another
treats as graphic variants of the same sign. Alexander Kondratov (1969: 183)
was the irst to make use of the term “allograph” in Kohau Rongorongo
studies, stating that “some allographs have not been recognised by Barthel
and assigned diferent numbers in his catalogue”. Irina Fedorova (1982:
37) was the irst to give examples of “allographs”.3 Since then many works
on the Kohau Rongorongo script have been dedicated to allographs either
entirely or partially (Guy 2006; Horley 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012;
Pozdniakov 1996; Rjabchikov 1988; Wieczorek 2011a, 2011b). The authors
rarely give a deinition of the term “allograph”.4 A careful reading reveals that
in the literature on Kohau Rongorongo an allograph or allographic variant of
a sign has been implicitly deined as “a similar graphic design”, with a tacit
implication that “a similar looking graphic design probably possesses a similar
reading value”. By implication, the art of graphic analysis is determined by
the ability of the scholar to detect similarities between outwardly diferent
graphic designs. However, this deinition would not be accepted by students
of other writing systems. This paper seeks to apply concepts developed and
generally accepted in the graphic analysis of other pictorial writing systems
with large numbers of signs. Its main purpose is to show that the graphic
inventory of the Kohau Rongorongo script is quite diferent from what is
found in the literature. Importantly, it is not necessary to decode the texts or
assign any reading values to individual signs to achieve this purpose.
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND TECHNICAL TERMS
Writing is a system of visually perceived signs, traditionally painted or
incised, and the rules for their combination developed for the purposes of
transmitting messages in a certain human language in order to inluence the
behaviour of the receiver of the message (Davletshin 2003: 87; cf. Coulmas
1999: 560; Daniels and Bright 1996: 3). A sign represents the relationship
between a certain graphic design (signiier or external form of the sign) and
a certain reading value (signiied or internal form of the sign) that is assigned
to a particular graphic design in a given writing system. Reading values
realise in certain contexts, i.e., in combinations with other signs (Davletshin
2003: 92). Sometimes a set of diferent reading values is associated with a
particular graphic design. Signs that possess more than one reading value
are called polyvalent signs or homographs.
64
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
It is easy to illustrate these statements with three examples based on English
writing. Here I use the International Phonetic Alphabet as it is an explicit
and acknowledged unifying system of transcription. Walking on a sea beach
one might ind a nicely drawn “o” in the sand; it would be ambiguous as to
whether this was an abstract drawing or a letter, and if the latter, should it be
read [oʊ] or [ɔ]; most likely you would interpret this as a circle. Importantly,
no-one would be able to prove that the circle drawn on sand is a letter,
which has a reading value. Further, one would read the letter “o” diferently
according to the context—as [oʊ] in “bone” versus [ɔ] in “dog”. In another
example, a native speaker of English, would probably read “John has been
beaten by Mary, that is to say, Mary has beaten Jahn” as a misspelling, where
“a” has been incorrectly substituted for “o” in the second reference to John.
These examples show that a reading value does not exist without context and
even interpretation of a graphic design depends on the reading values of its
sign. Further, a speaker of Spanish and a speaker of English would read the
same letter “o” in quite diferent ways, as for example in the word “tortilla”;
this highlights that writing systems have been developed and are used for
particular human languages.
There is considerable variation concerning the exact form of a sign,
particularly in handwriting. It is exactly the relation between a graphic design
and an associated reading value that permits us to recognise dramatically
distorted forms of signs and assign the reading value “o” to the letter “a”
in the sentence “... Mary has beaten Jahn”. Nevertheless, diferent graphic
variants of the same sign share graphic elements. Graphic designs can be
described or deined verbally; such deinitions are called iconic formulae in
this paper. In pictorial scripts the graphic design of a sign refers to the idea or
mental concept depicted as an object or action. The method of iconic formulae
involves analysing two or more graphic designs for potentially shared
elements. To obtain an iconic formula for a graphic design, it is necessary
to gather as many examples as possible of a given sign and then formulate
a description of its graphic design. This description should correspond to all
attested examples and at the same time it should difer from graphic designs
of other signs in the writing system. If verbal descriptions of two graphic
designs partially coincide, they are considered graphic variants of the same
sign; if not they belong to diferent signs. If two graphic designs possess the
same reading value and the graphic descriptions have nothing in common,
they are considered allographs, as further discussed below. Thus it is possible
to deine graphic variant as a standardised modiication of a graphic design
that preserves its general outlines, is recognisable as such, and therefore is
used with the same reading value. Typically, writing systems also include
diferent graphic designs that indicate the same reading value or the same set
Albert Davletshin
65
of reading values. For example, in English writing there are three diferent
signs: “A”, “a” and “ɑ”. It is easy to show that the three are not diferent
graphic variants but diferent graphic designs. By applying the method of
iconic formula we determine that “A” has three lines, “a” has two and “ɑ” has
one, and none of these lines are of the same form. In fact, only our cultural
knowledge that prevents us from seeing how diferent these graphic designs
are from a formal point view. It should be stressed that formal description
of a writing system is a synchronic procedure and has nothing to do with
the origin of its constituents, which sometimes go back to another writing
system developed for another language and situated far away in time and
space. In the above case, for example, historically, the three graphic designs
originated from an image of a triangular ox head with two horns extended.
The term “allograph” is used to differentiate incomparable graphic
designs with the same reading value (Houston et al. 2001; Knorozov 1963).
Sometimes they are called homophonic signs. The term homophonic signs
is etymologically incorrect but it helps to avoid inaccurate parallels with the
linguistic terms phoneme and allophone (see Pulgram 1951).5 To diferentiate
allographs in transliteration, the most frequent of them is indicated by the
reading value only: for example, a, the second most frequent is indicated
by the reading value with a subscript “2” as in a2, the third as a3, and so on.
Herein a polyvalent sign, that is a sign with diferent reading values, is treated
as one entity and signs that possess the same reading value are treated as
diferent entities. From a formal point of view it is possible to distinguish
diferent graphic designs but it is impossible to prove that a polyvalent sign
is a set of diferent signs that coincide graphically but not a set of diferent
reading values associated with the same graphic design. As a rule, allographs
of a polyvalent sign are assigned the same set of diferent reading values;
for example, the English signs “A”, “a” and “ɑ”. The existence of diferent
signs with the same reading values, and signs with diferent reading values,
is possible and unavoidable due to such universal characteristics of semiotic
systems as insuiciency and redundancy. Exact transmission of a message in
detail is too costly, so the system resorts to insuiciency but then the system
needs to disambiguate and resorts to redundancy, transmitting the same
information more than once.
A direct corollary of the deinition of “sign” is that graphic variants and
allographs are in free distribution in texts and consequently they substitute
for each other in the same context. The only reason for utilising a certain
graphic design is the associated reading value, and the graphic design itself
has no inluence on its use. The last statement is not always correct because
sometimes the choice of graphic variants or allographs depends on their
ability to combine with adjacent signs, as for example in the case of English
66
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
handwritten letters that are found at the beginning, in the middle or at the end
of a word. In this case we deal with functional graphic variants or ligature
graphic variants. Note that the distribution of functional graphic variants
also depends on the context.
Reading values can be of a diferent nature depending on the functional
type to which a particular sign belongs, and on a particular writing system,
because diferent writing systems make use of diferent functional types of
signs (e.g., Daniels and Bright 1996; Gelb 1963). Some signs are phonetic,
that is, they indicate abstract sounds or abstract sequences of sounds that form
syllables, as for example, English letters. Other signs are word-signs that
indicate both sounds of a word and corresponding lexical meanings, as for
example, numerals “1” and “2” in English. Diacritical signs do not possess
a phonetic reading value but indicate that a sign nearby has a special reading
value, as for example in English capital letters can indicate the beginning of
a sentence, a personal name, etc. Semantic determinatives do not possess a
phonetic reading value on their own but indicate the semantic class to which
a spelled word belongs. This functional type is absent in English writing
systems but it is very important, for example, in Chinese writing where such
signs are called radicals. Importantly, the functional type to which a particular
sign belongs does not afect the relation between its graphic shape and the
reading value assigned to this graphic shape.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER WRITING SYSTEMS
Allography is a wide-spread phenomenon in writing systems, which are
not restricted to alphabetic traditions, at least the author is unaware of any
writing system that does not make use of allographs. Writing systems difer
in how often and how many allographs they use—some of them rely more
heavily on allographs than the others. The total number of signs in the Kohau
Rongorongo script considerably exceeds the number of syllables in the
Rapanui language (54 syllables in total) and certain combinatorial properties
of signs imply the logographic nature of some signs and the syllabic nature
of the others (Davletshin 2012a, 2012b, 2016). Because of this, I will make
comparisons with other logosyllabic writing systems.
Allographs are proliic in Maya hieroglyphic writing (Houston et al. 2001;
Knorozov 1952: 116; Lounsbury 1984). A recently published list of syllabic
signs (Stuart 2005: 28-32), which can be easily expanded mostly thanks to
allographs, includes 84 diferent reading values but 133 diferent signs; in
other words, 49 signs (37% of the entire list) are allographs of more frequent
signs. In Maya hieroglyphic writing allographs abound in both phonetic signs
(syllabic signs) and word-signs (logographs). To illustrate the importance
of allographs in the script I have chosen the Tablet of 96 Hieroglyphs from
Palenque, Mexico (for drawings and photos see Miller and Martin 2004: 124;
Albert Davletshin
67
Pérez de Lara n.d.). The text is 356 signs long and the number of individual
signs is 149; 39 of them are allographs of more frequent signs and they
constitute 23% of the text, that is 83 signs in total. In the text consisting of
356 signs, only the syllable ‘u is written by nine diferent signs and the word
‘ajaw ‘lord, king’ by ive diferent signs (Fig. 1).
In Nahuatl hieroglyphic writing (Aubin 1849; Lacadena 2008) allographs
are less frequent. The syllabic grid of Nahuatl script is still incomplete. Out
of 54 expected positions in the syllabic grid only 41 are illed, seven signs
in this list (or 15% of the entire list) are allographs of more frequent signs
(Fig. 2). Examples of Nahuatl hieroglyphic writing nicely illustrate one
important feature of pictorial writing systems. In linear scripts, graphic
designs are abstract combinations of lines, strokes, dots and wedges
(Akkadian Cuneiform, Modern Chinese, English, etc.), while in pictorial
scripts (Egyptian, Maya, Nahuatl, Kohau Rongorongo, etc.) graphic designs
mostly depict recognisable objects and actions. In other words, in pictorial
scripts a reading value is associated with a visually depicted object or action,
and not with the way the object is depicted. In Nahuatl script one of the
graphic designs with the syllabic reading value a depicts “Flowing Water
(with Shells some of which are Transversally Cut)”, while the other represents
“Stagnant Water (Reservoir with Similarly Depicted Shells)” (Fig. 2). Both
graphic designs refer to the idea of water and the syllabic value of the sign is
acrophonically derived from the Nahuatl word ātl ‘water’. One of the syllabic
Figure 1. Allographs in Maya hieroglyphic writing. A. Diferent signs with the
phonetic reading value ‘u found on the Tablet of the 96 Hieroglyphs,
Palenque, Mexico. B. Diferent word-signs for ‘AJAW ‘lord, king’ found
on the same tablet. After Simon Martin’s drawing with his permission.
68
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
Figure 2. Allographs and graphic variants of CV phonetic signs in Nahuatl
hieroglyphic writing. The sign “Mouth” is polyvalent; it is used with two
diferent syllabic values—ka and te. Drawings by the author.
signs so depicts a “Threaded Bead”, another one depicts “(Something) Pierced
by a Bone Awl” and the third one depicts a “Nose-Plug”. The three graphic
designs refer to the idea of sōk ‘(something) pierced’. Both “Bird Head” and
“Bird (as a Whole)” have the syllabic value to related to the generic word
for ‘bird’ in Nahuatl tōtōtl. The method of iconic formulae method can help
us to distinguish between graphic variants of the same sign and allographs:
in the case of graphic variants their verbal descriptions partially coincide.
Applying this deinition one can see that two graphic designs with the reading
value ka in Nahuatl script depict two diferent objects: “Mouth” derived from
kamatl ‘mouth’ and “Sandal” derived from kaktli ‘sandals’ (Fig. 2). These
are allographs. In contrast, the graphic designs for the syllable a “Flowing
Water” and “Stagnant Water” depict the same visual idea ‘water’, so they
should be classiied as graphic variants.
To recap, a sign is the relationship between a graphic design and a reading
value assigned to it. In pictorial scripts, graphic designs depict recognisable
objects that can be verbally described by means of their shared graphic
designs, that is a shared iconic formula. If two similar graphic designs
possess the same reading value and can be described by means of one iconic
formula, they are graphic variants of one sign. If two graphic designs possess
the same reading value but look very diferent and cannot be described by
means of one iconic formula they are considered allographs.
Albert Davletshin
69
METHODS
The method of sign substitution has been shown to be eicient for identifying
graphic variants and allographs (Knorozov 1952: 116; Lounsbury 1984;
Stuart 1987). The method consists of examining changes in the writing of
the “presumed” same unit of script in identical contexts, where identical
surroundings imply the same reading value of the signs in question. In the
Rapa Nui case, I used Tablet P as my point of reference. The occurrence
of a given sign on Tablet P (for example #A Seal) was compared with the
occurrence (or substitution) of that sign in corresponding places on the other
two tablets, H and Q. From a practical point of view, unique examples of
substitution, and examples with the appearance of additional symbols before
and after the sign in question, should not be considered. It is important to
distinguish complete and incomplete substitutions. Incomplete substitutions
are those that show interchange between two signs only in some particular
contexts. An incomplete substitution does not imply identical, but rather
similar, reading values of two signs. In Maya script, for example, incomplete
substitutions between syllabic signs at the end of the words are restricted to
the syllables that share the same consonant and difer in vowels; this kind of
substitution is related to the loss of vowel length and glottalisation in the Late
Classic Period and their representation by disharmonic spellings (Houston
et al. 1998). Sometimes incomplete substitutions include functional graphic
variants of signs. For example, in Maya script the so-called “Distance Number
Introductory Glyphs” ‘uhtiiy ‘u-ti-ya prefers the syllabic sign ‘u of square
form because two remaining signs ti and ya are elongated. That is why rare
allographs of ‘u are frequently found in Distance Number Introductory Glyphs
(see examples in Stuart 1990).
Sign substitutions often remind non-epigraphers of homonyms.
Nevertheless, examples of substitutions in Maya script show that this is almost
never the case. Probably this is because absolute homonyms are extremely
rare in natural languages, which tend to eliminate instability resulting from
homonymic conlict (Williams 1944).
Importantly, the same method of sign substitution can be used to prove
that two graphic designs possess diferent reading values in spite of their
visual resemblance. Two graphic designs with the same reading value are
in free distribution so that the probability of sign substitution between two
graphic designs A and B should be close to the probability obtained by
multiplication of probabilities of occurrence for the designs A and B in the
texts. If this condition is not satisied, in the case of an ininitely large text it
would be possible to prove that all graphic designs attested are allographs,
because there always are errata and unrecognised diferences of similar,
but not identical contexts. Errata and unrecognised diferences of contexts
70
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
result in false substitutions, that is, seeming equivalences between two signs
that do not exist in the writing system under study. I will call this method
for identiication of seeming allographs the “inverse sign substitution”. I
also suggest the following practical criterion to avoid examples of false
substitutions in graphic analysis: a substitution is considered reliable if at
least two signs to the left of the sign in question, and two signs to the right,
match in two texts under analysis. This criterion is particularly useful when
passages of two diferent texts are compared. In the case of two long parallel
texts, false substitutions are infrequent, though some examples when one or
more signs are inserted are also attested in parallel texts.
In sum, a sign is the relationship between a graphic design and a reading
value assigned to it. If two similar graphic designs systematically substitute
for each other in identical contexts, they are considered graphic variants
of one sign. If two similar graphic designs do not systematically substitute
for each other in identical contexts, their resemblance is illusive and they
are should be considered two diferent signs. One can call such graphic
designs false or seeming graphic variants. If two similar graphic designs
systematically substitute for each other in identical contexts, but look very
diferent and cannot be described by means of one iconic formula, they are
considered allographs.
DATA AND ABBREVIATIONS USED
The surviving Kohau Rongorongo texts provide us with many diferent
testing areas for the study of substitutions. These include: (i) two lengthy
parallel texts, one consisting of three inscribed artefacts—the Great St
Petersburg Tablet, the Small St Petersburg Tablet and the Great Santiago
Tablet (Kudrjavtsev 1949) and another one attested on the London Tablet
and the recto side of the Small Santiago Tablet (Butinov and Knorozov
1956, 1957), as well as (ii) several attested lists (Barthel 1958; Butinov and
Knorozov 1956, 1957), (iii) recurrent sign-groups shared by various texts
(Butinov and Knorozov 1956, 1957; Horley 2007; Pozdniakov 1996), and
(iv) highly structured text fragments (Guy 1982). Diferent versions of the
two parallel texts seem to be almost exact copies of each other, while the
parallel text fragments show a considerable degree of variation. Because of
this, the present study is based mainly on the large parallel text discovered
by Boris Kudrjavtzev (Kudrjavtzev 1949; Olderogge 1949). Following the
Assyriological tradition, I suggest that the interlinearly ordered comparisons
of these three texts be called the Kudrjavtzev collations (Fig. 3). The data
from the other texts are used only when necessary.
In this paper, I use drawings by Paul Horley (2009, 2010, 2011), which were
compared with drawings by Mikhail Kudrjavtsev (published in Olderogge
1949), Bodo Spranz (published in Barthel 1958), Steven Fischer (1997), and
Albert Davletshin
71
Figure 3. Fragment of Kudrjavtzev collations. An interlinearly ordered comparison
of Line 1, verso on the Large St Petersburg Tablet (P) with parallels
on the Large Santiago Tablet (H) and the Small St Petersburg Tablet
(Q). Arrows indicate signs that are omitted in parallel texts, asterisks—
signiicant graphic variations, exclamation marks—diferent ligature
compositions and black squares – possible substitutions of a sign for
two others. Numbers refer to the corresponding glyph counted from
the beginning of the line, where the sign in question occurs. Note that
alternative interlinear ordering is possible in at least two cases: Pv1:3
and Pv1:21-23. After Paul Horley’s drawings with his permission.
my own drawings and photographs taken in the Peter the Great Museum of
Anthropology and Ethnography, St Petersburg and in the British Museum,
London. Satisfactory photographs of the Great Santiago Tablet have never been
published, so I am particularly grateful to Rafal Wieczorek for the opportunity
to work with his photographs of the cast of the Great Santiago Tablet hosted
in the Father Sebastian Englert Anthropological Museum on Rapa Nui.
Following traditional conventions, I use capital letters to refer to Barthel’s
designations of the Kohau Rongorongo texts (Barthel 1958):
72
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
L
M
O
P
Q
R
S
(Tahua Tablet)
(Aruku Kurenga Tablet)
(Mamari Tablet)
(Échancrée Tablet)
(Keiti Tablet)
(Chauvet Fragment)
(Small Santiago Tablet)
(Large Santiago Tablet)
(Santiago Staf)
(London Small Reimiro Wooden Gorget)
(Large Vienna Tablet)
(Berlin Tablet)
(Large St Petersburg Tablet)
(Small St Petersburg Tablet)
(Small Washington Tablet)
(Large Washington Tablet)
Lowercase letters r and v stands for the sides, recto and verso, when the
beginning of the text is identiied; lowercase letters a and b are conventional
designations of two sides for the cases when the beginning of the text is
unknown. Designation of lines on the Santiago Staf (I) are given after Horley
(2011). Numbers following lowercase letters indicate the corresponding line,
and numbers following the colon sign “:” refer to the corresponding glyph
counted from the beginning of the line, where the sign in question occurs.
Here glyphs are writing units separated by a space; they can be individual
signs or ligatures (connected writings) of several signs. The multiplication
sign “×” indicates substitution between two parallel texts. For example, “Pr3:4
× Qr2:42” should be read as “a sign found in the fourth glyph of line 3 on
the recto of the Great St Petersburg Tablet and a sign found in position 42
of line 2 on the recto of the Small St Petersburg Tablet substitute for each
other”. The question mark sign “?” shows that the identiication of a graphic
design is problematic, mostly because of poor preservation.
I use the method of iconic formulae to identify graphic designs and assign
them descriptive nicknames. These are given in double quotation marks and
listed in the Appendix. In this article every graphic design is assigned a capital
letter, preceded by the number sign “#”; graphic variants are indicated by
lowercase letters. “#Hb” should be read as “the variant b of graphic design
H”. It is important to emphasise that the speciic nickname “Turtle” does not
mean that the sign should be read as “turtle” in Rapanui, only that the sign
looks like a turtle. To the extent possible, I am inclined to apply descriptive
nicknames consistent with iconographic analysis of the signs in question but
to date many signs have not received satisfactory iconographic interpretations.
Albert Davletshin
73
The equality sign “=” and the non-equality sign “≠” are used to indicate
equivalences and diferences between readings values of two signs.
A inal note is about ligatures (connected writings of two and more signs).
Taking into account the complexity of the Kohau Rongorongo graphic system,
and the great number of ligatures, sometimes it is impossible to determine
whether a graphic design is a ligature of two signs or an independent sign,
and sometimes it is impossible to determine what would be a ligature version
of a particular sign. Because of this, I try to avoid discussions of ligatures
and ligature variants of signs in this paper.
A CONSERVATIVE GRAPHIC ANALYSIS
OF THE KOHAU RONGORONGO SCRIPT
Allographs
The graphic design #A represents a “Seal (Sitting on Its Tail)”, alluding to
the particular skeletal structure of sea lions and fur seals that allows them
to sit in semi-upright positions. It is attested 13 times on P (Table 1), though
mostly in ligatures (r1:25, v4:52, v5:28, v5:50, v6:53, v7:2, v7:43, v8:32,
v9:48, v11:10). Ligature forms are slightly diferent visually and thus can be
a diferent graphic design. The sign #A “Seal” is attested 13 times on P and
14 times is found in corresponding places of the two other texts, H and Q,
an occurrence that is referred to here as “without substitution”. Two times,
however, instead of the sign #A, we see the sign #B “Blenny Fish”, that is,
the sign #B substitutes for the sign #A (Fig. 4; for images of the blenny in
the Rapanui art see Horley and Lee 2012: 16, Fig. 14). Note here and below
that the parallel text of the Kudrjavtzev collations is attested in all three
versions (Tablets H, P and Q). This means that if a graphic design is attested
on P, for example 10 times, it can theoretically be substituted 20 times for
another graphic design. The sign #B is uncommon, and only attested six or
seven times in the Kohau Rongorongo texts in total (Hv9:23,25; Gv6:2124; ?Ia3:75).
There are two diferent types of Kohau Rongorongo signs according to
their combinatorial properties. Some signs form sequences of the kind ABAB,
BABA, AAAA and AAA in combinations with other signs; here A and B
designate the same sign in combinations (Davletshin 2012a). Other signs do
not form such sequences, tend to be used in isolation, and not as parts of sign
groups (Davletshin 2016). Probably signs of the irst type are phonetic signs
(spelling syllables) and signs of the second type are word-signs (spelling
lexical roots). The sign #A is attested in ABAB sequences twice (Pv10:33-36,
Db1:4-5) and the sign #B is attested as ABAB (Hv9:23-26) and as AAAA
(Gv6:21-24). Thus, the signs #A and #B belong to the same combinatorial
class supporting the suggestion that they share their reading value.6
74
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
Table 1. Allographs on Tablet P and their substitutions on Tablets H and Q.
Sign #A “Seal” × Sign #A “Seal”:
Pr1:25 × Hr1:26 × Qr1:17, Pv4:52 × Hv2:40 × Qv5:25, Pv5:28 × Hv3:24 ×
Qv6:13, Pv5:50 × Hv4:2, Pv6:23 × Hv4:24 × Qv7:14, Pv6:53 × Hv5:2, Pv7:2
× Hv5:9, Pv7:43? × Hv6:4, Pv8:32 × Hv6:53, Pv11:10 × Hv9:63
See also: Pv9:48
Sign #A “Seal” × Sign #B “Blenny Fish”:
Pv10:33 × Hv9:23, Pv10:35 × Hv9:25
Sign #C “Two Vines Growing Up” × Sign #C “Two Vines Growing Up”:
Pv8:25 × Hv6:46
See also: Pr3:56
Sign #C “Two Vines Growing Up” × Sign #D “Tuber (a Kind of)”:
Pr2:40 × Hr2:44 × Qr2:18, Pv5:48 × Hv3:45, Pv6:50 × Hv4:51
Sign #D “Tuber (a Kind of)” × Sign #D “Tuber (a Kind of)”:
Pr3:59 × Hr4:16, Pr6:59 × Hr7:26 × Qr7:11
Sign #F “Berried Stem” × Sign #F “Berried Stem”:
Pr8:22 × Qr8:42, Pv1:7 × Hr11:26 × Qv2:29, Pv3:33 × Hv1:24 × Qv4:19, Pv4:9
× Hv1:40 × Qv4:36, Pv4:12 × Hv1:43, Pv4:20 × Hv2:8, Pv4:25 × Hv2:13,
Pv6:27 × Hv4:28 × Qv7:18, Pv10:17 × Hv8:49, Pv11:2 × Hv9:54
See also: Pr5:69
Sign #G “Stem Stripped of Berries” × Sign #F “Berried Stem”:
Pv4:16 × Hv2:4, Pv4:46 × Hv2:34
The graphic design #C represents “Two Vines Growing Up” and #D,
a “Tuber (of a Kind)” (Fig. 4). Note that the graphic design “Two Vines
Growing Up” is diferent in distribution from “Two Vines Hanging Down”
(see Pr4:39 × Hr4:57 × Qr4:38). The design #C is attested four times on P,
and it is substituted four times for #D (Table 1). #D is attested two times
on P ; in three cases it is used without such substitution in the parallel texts.
Remarkably, the sign #C is not attested on Q and it is attested only once on
H, so it is characteristic to the text P. Thus, #C and #D are allographs and
possibly depict diferent part of the same plant. Both #C and #D are used in
isolation as word-signs. Notably some tablets bear traces of two-stage carving,
Albert Davletshin
75
Figure 4. Allographs in the Kohau Rongorongo texts: Sign #A “Seal” = Sign #B
“Blenny Fish”, Sign #C “Two Vines Growing Up” = Sign #D “Tuber
(a Kind of)” ≠ Sign #E “Leaved Vine Growing Up” + Sign #E “Leaved
Vine Growing Up”, Sign #F “Berried Stem” × Sign #G “Stem Stripped
of Berries”. After Paul Horley’s drawings, with his permission, and a
photograph of the Great St Petersburg Tablet by the author.
76
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
pre-incising with an obsidian lake and posterior contour enhancement with a
shark tooth (Fischer 1997: 388-9; Horley 2009). Sometimes signs originally
incised with an obsidian lake were corrected and/or replaced with other signs
during a second stage of writing. On Pr3:56 the pre-incised contours of a sign
#D can be seen inside the sign #C (Fig. 4). These indings may indicate that
#C and #D have the same reading value. If so, the scribe may have substituted
one sign for the other during the second stage of writing.
It is possible to suggest that the design #C, “Two Vines Growing Up”,
are two signs #E “Leaved Vine Growing Up” written together as a ligature.
Therefore #D is a word-sign of the structure C1V1C1V1 and E is a syllabic
sign C1V1; here C stands for a consonant and V for a vowel, and the subscript
number indicates whether or not the consonants or vowels are identical.
Nevertheless, I could not ind any plant names in Rapanui or proto-EasternPolynesian of the structure C1V1C1V1 (see Englert 1978; Greenhill and Clark
2011). #C on Pv5:48 is substituted for two identical signs #D on Hv3:45-46,
the last of which is on the edge of the tablet and damaged; in other words, what
is written as #C in the text P is written as #D + #D in the text H. Rhetorical
repetitions of words, which abound in traditional Polynesian narratives, is a
likely explanation for this (Davletshin 2012c).
The graphic design #F represents a kind of plant with berries or round
leaves “Berried Stem” and the graphic design #G is a “Stem Stripped of
Berries” (Fig. 4). The design #G is attested two times on P, it is substituted
three times for #F (Table 1). #F is attested 10 times on P and 14 times is
used without substitution. #F and #G substitute for each other several times
in the parallel fragments on the tablets A, C, E and S (Fig. 4). #G is a very
uncommon sign but it is possible to show that it possesses the same reading
value as #F, thanks to the substitutions attested. #F behaves as a word-sign but
it is diicult to maintain the same claim about #G due to its rarity. Probably
the designs #F and #G depict the same plant in two diferent ways.
Graphic Variants
The graphic design #H represents “Turtle”. Sometimes the turtle’s tail is
depicted (#Hb “Tailed Turtle”), its plastron is shown (#Hc “Overturned
Turtle”), its mouth is open (#Hd “Gaping Turtle”), the back lippers are
missing (#He “Turtle, Without Back Flippers”), one of lippers is clipped
(#Hf “Turtle, One Flipper Clipped”) or its belly is shown as hollow (#Hg
“Turtle, Hollow Belly”) (Fig. 5). On one occasion, the turtle sign is carved
with a tail and plastron, which in the suggested system will require the
simultaneous use of two characterising letters, #Hbc. The total number of
occurrences for the sign #H “Turtle” on P is 25, with two problematic cases
where it is diicult to be sure about identiication of the sign (Pv10:19,
Albert Davletshin
77
Pv10:21). #Hb, #Hd and #Hg are attested only once each and #Hf twice.
The graphic variant #Hg is not attested on P and only once on Q. In other
words, the graphic variants #Hb, #Hd, #Hf and #Hg are very uncommon.
The variant #Hc “Overturned Turtle” is attested four times on P and once
on Q, that is #Hc is the characteristic variant of the text P. The variant #He
“Turtle, Without Back Flippers” is attested seven times on P and three times
on H; speciically this graphic variant is not used by the carver of the Tablet
Q. In the three texts, these graphic variants of the “Turtle” sign are found
in free distribution (Table 2): #Hb is attested once and once it is substituted
for another variant, #Hc is attested four times and four times it is substituted
for other variants, #Hd is attested once and once it is substituted for another
variant, #He is attested seven times and seven times it is substituted for other
variants, #Hf is attested twice and twice it is substituted for another variant,
once #Hg substitutes for #Hf, and once two designs #Hb and #Hc co-occur
(Pv7:44). It is clear that one sign has seven diferent variants and all of them
depict the same subject, a turtle. The sign “Turtle” behaves as a word-sign.
The graphic design #I represents a “Head? on a X-shaped Base” and #Ib
is a “Head? on an Angular Pedestal” (Fig. 5). Two graphic variants freely
substitute for each other (Table 2): #I is attested four times on P, ive times
no substitutions are found in the parallel texts and three times it is substituted
for Ib. Interestingly, the graphic design #I (Fig. 5) never substitutes for the
visually similar design #J representing a “Sprout? on a X-shaped Base” which
is found in free distribution with #Jb “Sprout? on an Angular Pedestal” (Table
2): #J is attested six times on P; ive times no substitutions are found in the
parallel texts and three times it is substituted for #Jb. A recently published
paper (Wieczorek and Horley 2015: 132; see also Fig. 5) has shown that the
only problematic example of the substitution between #I and #J (Ma2:25) is
an artefact of inaccurate drawings. One can suspect that the graphic designs
“Angular Pedestal”, “X-shaped Base”, “Head?” and “Sprout?” are independent
signs with their own reading values which combine with one another to spell
certain words. Simple statistical observations rule out this possibility; none are
attested in combinations with other signs and none are used independently. An
exception is the graphic design “Head?” which may be attested independently
(Aa8:76, Aa8:78, etc.) and in combination with other signs (Hr7:34, Pr3:25,
etc.). This anomaly strongly suggests that the graphic design “Head?” by
itself on one the hand, and “Head? on an Angular Pedestal/X-shaped Base”
on the other, belong to two diferent signs with two diferent reading values.
All examples of the graphic element “Angular Pedestal” are found on Q. One
can suspect that the graphic element “Angular Pedestal” and “X-shaped Base”
refer to the same object, while “Head?” and “Sprout?” are diferential graphic
elements of the two signs. Unfortunately, it is not clear what “Pedestal”,
78
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
Table 2. Graphic variants on Tablet P and their substitutions on Tablets H and Q.
Sign #H “Turtle” (#b—“Tailed Turtle”, #c—“Overturned Turtle”, #d—“Gaping
Turtle”, #e—“Turtle, Without Back Flippers”, #f—“Turtle, One Flipper
Clipped”, #g—“Turtle, Hollow Belly”):
Pr1:8(#c) × Hr1:9, Pr1:12(#f) × Hr1:13, Pr1:21 × Hr1:22 × Qr1:14, Pr4:60 ×
Hr5:18 × Qr5:8, Pr6:35(#e) × Hr7:5 × Qr6:37, Pr8:3(#e) × Qr8:8(#g), Pr11:13
× Qv2:1, Pr11:14 × Qv2:2(#c), Pv2:20(#f) × Qv3:7, Pv4:14(#e) × Hv2:2,
Pv4:47(#e) × Hv2:35 × Qv5:18, Pv5:9 × Hv3:3 × Qv5:34, Pv7:44(#bc) × Hv6:5,
Pv7:46(#c) × Hv6:7, Pv8:26(#e) × Hv6:47(#e), Pv8:42(#d) × Hv7:7, Pv8:44
× Hv7:10, Pv8:46 × Hv7:13, Pv9:4(#e) × Hv7:33(#e), Pv9:10(#c) × Hv7:40,
Pv9:21 × Hv7:52(#e), Pv9:51(#e) × Hv8:32
See also problematic examples: Pv10:19(#e)? × Hv8:51(#e), Pv10:21(#e)? ×
Hv9:1(#e)-2
See also: Pv9:37
Sign #I “Head? on a X-shaped Base” (#Ib—“Head? on an Angular Pedestal”):
Pr2:31 × Hr2:36 × Qr2:10(#b), Pr2:36(?) × Hr2:41(?) × Qr2:15(?#b), Pr7:9 ×
Hr7:39 × Qr7:23(#b), Pr9:27 × Hr10:14, Pv8:51 × Hv7:16
Sign #J “Sprout? on a X-shaped Base” (#Jb—“Sprout? on an Angular Pedestal”):
Pr6:55 × Hr7:21 × Qr7:6, Pr7:14 × Hr7:44 × Qr7:28(#b), Pr8:25 × Qr8:45(#b),
Pr9:36 × Hr10:23, Pr9:42 × Hr10:29, Pv3:9 × Qv3:43(#b)
Sign #K “Calabash” (#Kb—“Hollow Calabash”):
Pr7:5 × Hr7:36 × Qr7:20, Pv3:8 × Hv1:6 × Qv3:42, Pv5:4(#b) × Hv2:46(#b)
× Qv5:29, Pv7:13 × Hv5:29(#b) × Qv8:11, Pv7:15 × Hv5:31(#b) × Qv8:13,
Pv7:17 × Hv5:33(#b) × Qv8:15, Pv7:26 × Hv5:44(#b) × Qv8:26, Pv7:27 ×
Hv5:45(#b) × Qv8:28, Pv8:28(#b) × Hv6:49(#b), Pv8:41 × Hv7:6
Sign #L “Gourd”:
Pr6:31 × Hr7:1 × Qr6:33, Pr8:24 × Qr8:44, Pv9:8 × Hv7:38, Pv9:19 × Hv7:51,
Pv9:48 × Hv8:29
“X-shaped Base” and “Sprout” depict. The two signs #I and #J seem to be
word-signs (but see Fa4:3-6 for #J).
The graphic design #K represents a “Calabash” and #Kb represents a
“Hollow Calabash” (Fig. 5). They freely substitute for each other: #K is
attested eight times on P, ten times no substitutions are found in the parallel
texts and ive times it is substituted for #Kb. #Kb is attested twice on P, twice
it is substituted for #Kb and once for #K (Table 2). The graphic element
Albert Davletshin
79
Figure 5. Graphic variants in the Kohau Rongorongo texts: Sign #H “Turtle” =
#Hb “Tailed Turtle” = #Hc “Overturned Turtle” = #Hd “Gaping Turtle”
= #He “Turtle, Without Back Flippers” = #Hf “Turtle, One Flipper
Clipped” = #Hg “Turtle, Hollow Belly”, Sign #I “Head? on a X-shaped
Base” = #Ib “Head? on an Angular Pedestal Pedestal” ≠ Sign #J
“Sprout? on a X-shaped Base” = #Jb “Sprout? on an Angular Pedestal”,
Sign #K “Calabash” = #Kb “Hollow Calabash” ≠ Sign #L “Gourd”.
After Paul Horley’s drawings with his permission.
“Hollow” is never found on Q. A very similar graphic design, #L “Gourd”,
represents a “calabash with slightly narrowed upper part” (Fig. 5). #L never
substitutes for #K “Calabash” and #Kb “Hollow Calabash” (Table 2): #L is
attested ive times on P and occurs without substitution six times. #L “Gourd”
never includes the graphic element “Hollow”, so this graphic element is
characteristic of the sign #K “Calabash”. Remarkably, #K is likely to be a
phonetic sign according to its properties (Pv7:13-16 × Hv5:29-32 × Qv8:1114) and #L is not (see Ab6:42-55).
Seeming Graphic Variants
There are many diferent graphic designs depicting ish on the three tablets:
#M “Fish (Head Upwardly)”, #N “Spiny Fish”, #O “Fish Upside Down”,
#P “Swimming Fish”, #Q “Fish on Fishing Line” and #R “Catch of Fish
(Fishes Strung on A Cord)” (Fig. 6). These are diferent signs because they
do not substitute for each other: #M is attested 17 times on P and occurs
without substitution 27 times in parallel texts. #N is attested 11 times on P
and occurs without substitution 17 times. #O is attested ive times on P and
occurs without substitution 13 times, #P is attested twice on H and is occurs
without substitution three times, #Q is attested six times on P and occurs
80
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
without substitution nine times, and #R is attested three times on P and
occurs without substitution ive times (Table 3). One example of the sign #N
(Pr10:39) is so obliterated that only its general outlines can be seen. There are
three problematic examples of substitution between #M and #N which require
discussion: Pr10:15(#M) × Qv1:9(#N) and Pr10:37(#M) × Hr10:48(#N) ×
Qv1:33(#N). They can be analysed as examples of incomplete substitution.
However, three examples are restricted to two contexts and in both cases
there are some other changes in neighbouring signs; in other words, they
might represent examples of false substitution. #P on Pv1:16 rather looks
like #M, but it is found on the very edge of the tablet, which makes it diicult
to diferentiate the two graphic designs and would make it diicult to carve
the sign. Besides this, the slight variations in the text between Pv1:16 and
Hr11:34 × Qv2:39 suggest false substitution as an alternative explanation.
The signs #M, #N and #Q are syllabic signs, while #P and #R are word-signs
(for ABAB and AAA combinations see Br7:4-5, Ca5:26-28, Db4:7-8, Er6:3739, Ev2:17-20, Gv5:14-16, Ma2:9-14, Rb4:3-6, Sb3:30-32). It is diicult to
be sure about the type to which the sign #O belongs because the only likely
example of #OOO may involve another graphic design (?Ma1:14-16). It
is possible to analyse #N as a combination of two signs written in ligature
“Spikes” and “Fish”. However, the sequence #NNNN found on Rb4:3-6 rules
out this possibility and shows that #N is a syllabic sign.
Diferent graphic elements accompany the signs #M-R: #b—“Fish, Gills”,
#bb—“Fish, Double Gills”, #c—“Fish, Bulbed Tail”, #d—“Fish, Lateral
Line”, #e—“Fish, Extra Fins”, #f—“Fish, Without Head”. None of them are
discriminating graphic elements and sometimes they are combined (Table 3).
The graphic element #c is restricted to the signs #M and #N and #f to the
sign #O. Remarkably, the element #e is never attested as part of the sign #R
and seldom (only twice) as part of the sign #P, probably due to the lack of
space. The number of ishes strung on a cord in the sign #R “Catch of Fish”
can be four (ive of eight examples) or three (two of eight examples found
on P). One example of “two ishes strung” (Hv9:53) can be explained by the
lack of space at the end of the text.
Surprisingly, Barthel’s catalogue (1958) recognises only three diferent
ish signs between the discussed examples: “Fish, Gills” (700), “Fish,
Without Gills” (710) and “Fish on a Fishing Line” (711). Seven graphic
designs depicting ish (#B, #M-R) are attested in the three parallel texts under
consideration and have been discussed here, but even more signs depicting
ish can be found in other Kohau Rongorongo texts.
Orientation according the vertical axis, “Up” versus “Down”, seems to
be an important principle of the Kohau Rongorongo graphic system. Two
similar graphic designs, #E “Leaved Vine Growing Up” and #S “Leaved
Vine Hanging Down”, have been never recognised as independent signs in
the literature (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, they never substitute for each other and
Albert Davletshin
81
belong to diferent contexts: #E is attested ive times on P and occurs 10 times
without substitution, while #S is attested 42 times on P and occurs 72 times
without substitution (Table 3). Without doubt these two signs are assigned
two diferent reading values in the script. They behave as syllabic signs (see
ABAB for #E: Aa1:39-40, Cb8:9-10, Gr5:29-30, Pr5:18-19 × Hr5:35-36 ×
Qr5:26-27 and for #S: ?Bv3:43-Bv4:1, Bv4:4-5, ?Gv8:29-30, ?Rb4:12-13).
The graphic designs #T “Arm (Pointing Up)” and #U “Arm Pointing Down”
follow the same principle of the vertical axis (Fig. 6). Note that I distinguish
two diferent graphic designs here: “Hand” and “Arm”, the latter including
an “Elbow” in its graphic design. The sign #U is extremely rare; it is attested
only once on P and occurs once without substitution and I do not know of other
non-ligature examples of the sign in question (Pv8:60 × Hv7:24). Ligature
examples of graphic design may correspond to another sign (see Br5:36,
Bv12:28, 41). The sign #T is attested 13 times on P and occurs 14 times
without substitution (Table 3). #T seems to be a syllabic sign (for ABAB see
Ev3: 14-17, Ev8:2-3, ?Fa4:3-6, Ma2:9-14, Ma5:8-11, Oa8:18-21, Pr24-26). It
is diicult to identify the class of the sign #U due to its rarity. Note also that
the graphic design “Fish Upside Down on Fishing Line”, which is attested
only four times on C7-9, is contrasted by the context with the sign #Q “Fish
on Fishing Line” (Guy 1990: 140) and probably represents another sign with
a diferent reading value.
The only diference between two very similar graphic designs #V “Comb”
and #W “Wide-Handled Comb” is a little swelling on the lower end of
#W (Fig. 6). It is unclear what these two signs depict and “Comb” is just
a nickname here. The sign #V is commonly interpreted as kōmari ‘female
genitalia, vulva’ based on comparison with the well-known Rapa Nui rock-art
motif (Geiseler 1883 in Ayres and Ayres 2005: 58; Lee 1992: 35; Métraux
1940: 409; Thomson 1891: 517). Paul Horley (pers. comm., 2014) has pointed
out to me that the sign on the tablets is oriented the other side up, so that it is
unlikely to represent female genitalia. Besides, there is a sign which depicts
kōmari and resembles the corresponding rock-art motif; see for example,
La:33, Ia9:88 and Ia14:9. Two graphic designs #V and #W never substitute
for each other (Table 3): #V is attested 16 times on P and occurs 22 times
without substitution, #W is attested seven times on P and occurs 12 times
without substitution. They belong to diferent contexts and neither of them
participates in ABAB sequences.
The graphic designs #X “Worm” and #Y “Eel” represent snake-like living
creatures; #X “Worm” difers from #Y “Eel” by its wriggling body (Fig. 6).
Two graphic designs #X and #Y never substitute for each other (Table 3):
#X is attested ive times on P and occurs 10 times without substitution, #Y
is attested four times on P and occurs ive times without substitution. A very
similar graphic design #Z “Hand-Tailed Eel” is attested twice in the three
texts (Pv6:25 × Hv4:26) and once it seems to be substituted for #Y (Qv7:16).
82
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
Table 3. Seeming graphic variants on Tablet P and their substitutions on Tablets
H and Q.
Sign #M “Fish” (#b—“Fish, Gills”, #bb—“Fish, Double Gills”, #c—“Fish,
Bulbed Tail”, #d—“Fish, Lateral Line”, #e—“Fish, Extra Fins”):
Pr1:7(#bc) × Hr1:8(#b), Pr1:45(#b) × Hr1:47(#b), Pr2:51(#b) × Hr2:53(#b) ×
Qr2:27(#b), Pr4:25(#bbe) × Hr4:44(#b) × Qr4:24(#b), Pr4:35(#b) × Hr4:52(#b)
× Qr4:33(#b), Pr6:17(#bce) × Hr6:53(#b) × Qr6:19(#b), Pr8:51(#bde) ×
Hr9:24(#b) × Qr9:23(#b?), Pr9:32(#bce) × Hr10:19(#b), Pr9:38(#bc) ×
Hr10:25(#b), Pr11:24(?) × Hr11:9(#b) × Qv2:12(#b), Pv3:30(#bb) × Hv1:21(#b)
× Qv4:16(#b), Pv4:6(#bb) × Hv1:37(#b) × Qv4:32(#b), Pv4:34(#b) × Hv2:22(#b)
× Qv5:5(#b), Pv6:28(#bb) × Hv4:29(#b) × Qv7:19(#bb?), Pv7:64(#bc) ×
Hv6:21(#b), Pv8:1(#bbc) × Hv6:22(#b), Pv8:29(#bc) × Hv6:50(#b)
Sign #N “Spiny Fish” (#b—“Fish, Gills”, #c—“Fish, Bulbed Tail”, #e—“Fish,
Extra Fins”):
Pr8:38(#bce) × Hr9:10(#b) × Qr9:9(#b?), Pr10:13(#b) × Qv1:10(#b), Pr10:26(#b)
× Qv1:20(#b), Pr10:27(#b) × Qv1:21(#b), Pr10:29(#b) × Hr10:40(#b) ×
Qv1:25(#b), Pr10:31(#b) × Hr10:42(#b) × Qv1:27, Pr10:33(#b) × Hr10:44(#b)
× Qv1:29, Pr10:35(#b) × Hr10:46(#b) × Qv1:31, Pr10:39?(#b?) × Hr11:2(#b)
× Qv1:35(#b), Pv9:42(#bc) × Hv8:23(#b), Pv9:43(#bc) × Hv8:24(#b)
Sign #M “Fish” × Sign #N “Spiny Fish” (problematic examples, #b—“Fish,
Gills”):
Pr10:15(#Mb) × Qv1:9(#Nb), Pr10:37(#Mb) × Hr10:38(#Nb) × Qv1:23(#N?)
Sign #O “Fish Upside Down” (#b—“Fish, Gills”, #bb—“Fish, Double Gills”,
#f—“Fish, Without Head”):
Pv5:45(#bbf) × Hv3:42(#b), Pv6:16(#bbf) × Hv4:18(#bb) × Qv7:8(#bbf),
Pv6:45(#bbf) × Hv4:46(#bbf) × Qv7:36(#b), Pv7:37(#b) × Hv5:55(#bbf),
Pv8:7(#b) × Hv6:28(#b) × Qv9:13(#b?)
Sign #P “Swimming Fish” (#b—“Fish, Gills”):
Pv1:16?(#b) × Hr11:34 × Qv2:39(#b)
See also: Hr12:6(#b) × Qv2:46(#b)
Sign #Q “Fish on Fishing Line” (#b—“Fish, Gills”):
Pr2:61 × Hr3:5 × Qr2:36, Pr4:10 × Hr4:31 × Qr4:12(#b), Pr4:13 × Hr4:33 ×
Qr4:14, Pr8:5 × Hr8:37 × Qr8:12, Pv8:65(#b) × Hv7:29
See also: Pr6:49
Albert Davletshin
83
Sign #R “Catch (of Fish)”:
Pv7:26(3 ishes) × Hv5:44 × Qv8:26, Pv7:27(3 ishes) × Hv5:45 × Qv8:28,
Pv11:1(?) × Hv9:53(2 ishes)
Sign #E “Leaved Vine Growing Up” × Sign #E “Leaved Vine Growing Up”:
Pr5:18 × Hr5:35 × Qr5:26, Pr5:19 × Hr5:36 × Qr5:27, Pr5:22 × Hr5:39 × Qr5:31,
Pr5:24 × Hr5:41 × Qr5:34, Pr6:15 × Hr6:51 × Qr6:17
See also: Hr4:13
Sign #S “Leaved Vine Hanging Down” × Sign #S “Leaved Vine Hanging Down”:
Pr1:16 × Hr1:17 × Qr1:9, Pr1:17 × Hr1:18 × Qr1:10, Pr1:18 × Hr1:19 × Qr1:11,
Pr1:24 × Hr1:25 × Qr1:16, Pr1:25 × Hr1:26 × Qr1:17, Pr1:26 × Hr1:27 ×
Qr1:18, Pr2:54 × Hr2:56 × Qr2:30, Pr2:57 × Hr3:1 × Qr2:32, Pr3:8 × Hr3:16 ×
Qr3:2, Pr3:19 × Hr3:27 × Qr3:13, Pr3:22 × Hr3:30 × Qr3:17, Pr3:23 × Hr3:31 ×
Qr3:18, Pr3:25 × Hr3:32 × Qr3:19, Pr3:26 × Hr3:33 × Qr3:20, Pr3:27 × Hr3:34 ×
Qr3:21, Pr3:28 × Hr3:35 × Qr3:22, Pr3:29 × Hr3:36 × Qr3:23, Pr3:30 × Hr3:37 ×
Qr3:24, Pr3:31 × Hr3:38 × Qr3:25, Pr3:34 × Hr3:42 × Qr3:29, Pr3:36 × Hr3:43 ×
Qr3:30, Pr3:39 × Hr3:48 × Qr3:35, Pr3:40 × Hr3:49 × Qr3:36, Pr3:42 × Hr3:50
× Qr3:37, Pr3:63 × Hr4:20, Pr4:38 × Hr4:54 × Qr4:35, Pr7:1 × Hr7:32 × Qr7:16,
Pr7:18 × Hr7:48 × Qr7:33, Pr7:54 × Hr8:34, Pr8:3 × Qr8:9, Pr11:24 × Hr11:9
× Qv2:12, Pv1:6 × Hr11:25 × Qv2:28, Pv1:24 × Hr12:7 × Qv2:47, Pv1:25 ×
Hr12:8, Pv3:13 × Qv3:47, Pv7:11? × Hv5:22 × Qv8:4, Pv8:56 × Hv7:20, Pv8:58
× Hv7:22, Pv8:60 × Hv7:24, Pv8:63 × Hv7:27, Pv9:11 × Hv7:40
See also: Pr3:54
Sign #T “Arm (Pointing Up)” × Sign #T “Arm (Pointing Up)”:
Pr3:12 × Hr3:21 × Qr3:6, Pr3:14 × Hr3:23 × Qr3:8, Pr3:16 × Hr3:25 × Qr3:10,
Pr7:54 × Hr8:34, Pv4:18 × Hv2:6, Pv4:8 × Hv2:6, Pv6:44 × Hv4:45 × Qv7:35,
Pv8:63 × Hv7:27, Pv9:52? × Hv8:33, Pv10:3 × Hv8:37
See also: Pr3:24, Pr3:25, Pv6:34, Hv8:35
Sign #U “Arm Pointing Down” × Sign #U “Arm Pointing Down”:
Pv8:60 × Hv7:24
Sign #V “Comb” × Sign #V “Comb”:
Pr1:3 × Hr1:4 × Qr1:4, Pr2:18 (twice) × Hr2:23 (twice), Pr2:18 × Hr2:23,
Pr4:13 × Hr4:33 × Qr4:14, Pr6:38 × Hr7:8 × Qr6:40, Pr7:46 × Hr8:25, Pr7:50
× Hr8:28, Pr7:52 × Hr8:32, Pr7:59 × Qr8:5, Pr8:45 × Hr9:17 × Qr9:16, Pr9:29
× Hr10:16, Pv4:44 × Hv2:32 × Qv5:15, Pv4:49 × Hv2:37 × Qv5:20, Pv8:55 ×
Hv7:19, Pv8:64 × Hv7:28
See also: Hr11:4 × Qv1:37, Hr11:5 × Qv1:38
– Table 3 continued over page
84
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
Sign #W “Wide-Handled Comb” × Sign #W “Wide-Handled Comb”:
Pr4:17 × Hr4:37 × Qr4:17, Pr7:33 × Hr8:13, Pv7:19 × Hv5:35 × Qv8:17, Pv7:21
× Hv5:37 × Qv8:19, Pv7:22 × Hv5:38 × Qv8:20, Pv7:24 × Hv5:40 × Qv8:22,
Pv11:47 × Hv10:38
Sign #X “Worm” × Sign #X “Worm”:
Pr5:12 × Hr5:29 × Qr5:20, Pr5:13 × Hr5:30 × Qr5:21, Pr5:14 × Hr5:31 × Qr5:22,
Pr5:15 × Hr5:32 × Qr5:23, Pr6:34 × Hr7:4 × Qr6:36
Sign #Y “Eel” × Sign #Y “Eel”:
Pr5:52 × Hr6:6, Pv5:27 × Hv3:22 × Qv6:10, Pv5:49 × Hv4:1, Pv6:52? × Hv5:1?
Sign #Z? “Hand-Tailed Eel” × Sign #Z? “Hand-Tailed Eel”:
Pv6:25 × Hv4:26 × Qv7:16(?)
It should be noted that the sign #Y on Q is obliterated, with only its general
outlines preserved. It is diicult to assert that the graphic design #Z “HandTailed Eel” is an independent sign due to its rarity. It can be a graphic variant
of the sign #Y or a ligature of the sign #Y with the sign “Hand”, but the fact
that two known examples of #Z are restricted to the same context suggests that
#Y and #Z are two diferent signs. The sequence #XXXX, which is attested 4
times (Aa1:5-8 × Pr5:12-15 × Hr5:32 × Qr5:23), implies that #X is a syllabic
sign. The sign #Y behaves as a word-sign (see Ab6:42-55).
***
Application of the technical terms and concepts developed in graphic analysis
of other pictorial writing systems to the surviving Kohau Rongorongo texts
leads us to promising results. First, it has been shown for the irst time that
some visually diferent signs of the Kohau Rongorongo script have the same
reading value. Signs of this type (allographs) are relatively uncommon in
the Kohau Rongorongo script in contrast to, for example, Maya writing.
Second, several graphic designs that were previously thought of as variants
of more frequent signs have been identiied as independent signs. Some of
them are very rare in the inscriptions. Probably a thorough graphic analysis
would considerably increase the total number of signs attested in the Kohau
Rongorongo writing system. Some graphic variants are limited to particular
tablets; they probably pertain to certain scribes or schools of scribes or
could be chronological variations of the script (see Wieczorek 2011b). Some
graphic variants are restricted to contexts where there is a lack of space. It
Albert Davletshin
85
Figure 6. Seeming graphic variants in the Kohau Rongorongo texts: Sign #M
“Fish” ≠ (#b “Fish, Gills”, #bb “Fish, Double Gills”, #c “Fish, Bulbed
Tail”, #d “Fish, Lateral Line”, #e “Fish, Extra Fins”) ≠ Sign #N “Spiny
Fish” (#b “Fish, Gills”, #c “Fish, Bulbed Tail”, #e “Fish, Extra Fins”)
≠ Sign #O “Fish Upside Down” (#b “Fish, Gills”, #bb “Fish, Double
Gills”, #f “Fish, Without Head”) ≠ Sign #P “Swimming Fish” (#b “Fish,
Gills”) ≠ Sign #Q “Fish on Fishing Line” (#b “Fish, Gills”) ≠ Sign #R
“Catch of Fish”; Sign #E “Leaved Vine Growing Up” ≠ Sign #S “Leaved
Vine Hanging Down”; Sign #T “Arm (Pointing Up)” ≠ Sign #U “Arm
Pointing Down”; Sign #V “Comb” ≠ Sign #W “Wide-Handled Comb”;
Sign #X “Worm” ≠ Sign #Y “Eel” ≠ Sign #Z? “Hand-Tailed Eel”. After
Paul Horley’s drawings with his permission.
86
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
is the context that is important in graphic analysis because graphic analysis
is concerned with signs that possess reading values, that is meanings,
which actualise in certain graphic environments. Every violation of the
free distribution statistics of two graphic designs that supposedly represent
the same sign should be addressed in detail. If such violations cannot be
explained in a satisfactory way, it would indicate that graphic analysis alone
is insuicient. Sometimes violations can be explained by the fact that the
available data is scarce (i.e., sample size efects). Third, sometimes variations
of the same graphic design with corresponding verbal descriptions help us
to understand the objects depicted by signs. The method of iconic formulae
may lay down a foundation for the future iconographic analysis of highly
pictorial signs of the Kohau Rongorongo script.
My aim here was not to identify as many allographs and independent
signs as possible but rather to show how the mechanics of the Kohau
Rongorongo graphic system work. Because of this, I have excluded
graphically complex signs, such as those depicting birds and human beings.
I have also restricted myself to the three large parallel texts. The results
presented here can be easily applied to and veriied with data from the other
inscribed tablets. I suggest that the methods of graphic analysis outlined
here—sign substitution, inverse sign substitution and iconic formulae—
should be carefully applied to every single sign of the Kohau Rongorongo
script and the results of such application should be constantly re-checked
and revised. Graphic analysis of individual signs and their identiications
should not be freely assumed, but explicitly presented and justiied. It is
important to bear in mind that sometimes examples of substitution are
lacking or their number is insuicient, so we cannot be sure with the data
at our disposal whether two similar graphic designs are indeed variants of
the same sign or if they belong to two diferent signs with two diferent
reading values.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my friends and colleagues who in one way or another have
helped me to inish this paper: Burkhard Vogt, Dmitri Beliaev, Paul Horley, Rafal
Wieczorek and Scott Nicolay. I am grateful to Paul Horley for his kind permission
to use his unpublished drawings. Many thanks go to the curators Pavel Belkov and
Tatiana Sokolova (Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St
Petersburg) for giving me the opportunity to work with the original artefacts. This
study is based on results obtained during my two month stay at the Commission for
Archaeology of Non-European Cultures (KAAK, Bonn), supported by a German
Academic Exchange Service Scholarship (2014-2015). Analysis of the Maya
hieroglyphic text from Palenque was supported by the Russian Science Foundation
(Project 15-18-300045 “Genesis and development of Ancient Maya complex societies
in the light of modern theories of social evolution”).
Albert Davletshin
87
NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I dedicate my article to Boris Kudrjavtzev who in 1938, around the age of 16,
made one of the most important Kohau Rongorongo discoveries to date: the
same text is written on the Great St Petersburg Tablet, the Small St Petersburg
Tablet and the Great Santiago Tablet (Zhamoida 1996: 1113). Boris recognised
the signiicance of his discovery, which makes it possible to establish the reading
order, and identify graphic variants, ligatures and word boundaries of the three
texts, but tragically he died at a young age during World War II. Although he
was not able to complete his studies, a very interesting 46-page manuscript was
posthumously published (Kudrjavtzev 1949; Olderogge 1949). It is a crucial
work for scholars working on the Kohau Rongorongo script, but unfortunately
has never been translated into any European language. The miraculous birth from
an egg referred to in this epigraph is a wide-spread heroic motif in Polynesia and
in many other parts of the world.
The logosyllabic writing systems of the Far East (Chinese, Japanese, Jurchen,
Khitan, Tangut, etc.) are similar graphically and thus undoubtedly derived from
one original system. Several families of writings developed in the Near East
(Cretan, Cuneiform, Egyptian, Luwian, including the Indus script) are diferent
in external form, and typologically, so they cannot be derived from one source.
The mere fact that diferent writing systems quickly developed in geographical
proximity strongly suggests that the idea of writing was invented only once and
afterwards other systems were developed by the people who were familiar with
this idea (Gelb 1963). In my opinion, it is unclear which writing system of the
Near East appeared irst; the Cuneiform script and the Egyptian one are likely
candidates. It is also unclear whether the idea of writing was independently
invented in the Far East or was somehow introduced thereto from the Near East.
The following signs of Barthel’s catalogue are considered allographs by Fedorova:
011=001, 041=040, 056=027, 081=008, 091=090, 102=003, 174=015, 205=204,
246=244, 356=244, 386=385, 421=430, 606=604, and 651=680 (Fedorova 1982:
42-70).
Jacques Guy (2006: 55) coined the odd term “alloglyphs” which are deined as
variants of the same “glypheme”, that is, the same letter. He also claims to borrow
the term “glyph” from Mayanists. In Maya epigraphy “glyph” is an informal
abbreviation for the term “hieroglyph”, deined as a sign or a combination of
several signs that are used to write a word. The basis for his claim that “the
Russian School has been using the term grapheme to cover what is all at once
graph, grapheme and allograph in Crystal’s glossary” is also unclear, as is what
he means by “the Russian School”.
The term allography was originally introduced by analogy with the terms
“phoneme” and “allophone” by Ernst Pulgram (1951). Unfortunately, the author
makes use of a non-formal emic concept “letter” and does not distinguish two
diferent phenomena which are called “allographs” and “graphic variants” in the
present paper. This makes it impossible to use his deinitions for graphic analysis
of an undeciphered writing system.
The Rapanui word for ‘seal’ is pakia and ‘blenny’ is pātuki, suggesting the reading
value pa for the signs under discussion.
88
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
REFERENCES
Aubin, Joseph Marius Alexis, 1849. Mémoirs sur la peinture didactique et l’écriture
igurative des anciens mexicaines. Paris: Paul Dupont.
Ayres, William S. and Gabriela S. Ayres, 1995. Geiseler’s Easter Island Report.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. [Translation of Geiseler 1883].
Barthel, Thomas S., 1958. Grundlagen zur Entziferung der Osterinselschrift.
Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde 64, Reihe B: Völkerkunde,
Kulturgeschichte und Sprachen Band 36. Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter.
——1971. Pre-Contact writing in Oceania. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in
Linguistics 8: Linguistics in Oceania. Den Haag-Paris: Mouton, pp. 1165-86.
Beckwith, Martha Warren, 1951. The Kumulipo: A Hawaiian Creation Chant. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Butinov, Nikolai A. and Yuri V. Knorozov [Бутинов Н.А., Кнорозов Ю.В.],
1956. Предварительное сообщение о письме острова Пасхи. Советская
этнография 4: 77-91.
——1957. Preliminary report on the study of the written language of Easter Island.
Journal of the Polynesian Society 66: 5-17. [Translation of Butinov and Knorozov
1956].
Champollion, Le Jeune, 1822. Lettre à M. Dacier relative à l’alphabet des hiéroglyphes
phonétiques. Paris: Firmin Didot Père et Fils.
Coulmas, Florian, 1999. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Wiley.
Daniels, Peter T. and William Bright (eds), 1996. The World’s Writing Systems. New
York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davletshin, Albert [Давлетшин А.И.], 2003. Палеография древних майя. Дис.
… канд. ист. наук. Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный
университет. [In Russian].
——2012a. Name in the Kohau Rongorongo script (Easter Island). Journal de la
Société des Océanistes 134 (1): 71-85.
——2012b. Numerals and phonetic complements in the Kohau Rongorongo script of
Easter Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society 121 (3): 243-74.
——2012c. Grammatical markers in the Kohau Rongorongo script of Easter Island and
three diferent methods of their identiication. In 12 ICAL: The 12th International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 02-06 July 2012. Bali-Indonesia:
Udayana University, p. 58.
——2016. Word-signs and sign groups in the Kohau Rongorongo script of Easter
Island. In I. Conrich and H. Mückler (eds), Easter Island: Cultural and Historical
Perspectives. Berlin: Frank & Timme, pp. 201-16.
Emory, Kenneth, 1968. Review of Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological
Expedition to Easter Island and the East Paciic, Vol. 2. American Anthropologist
70: 152-54.
Englert, Sebastian, 1978. Idioma rapanui: Gramática y diccionario del antiguo idioma
de la Isla de Pascua. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile.
Fedorova, Irina K. [Фёдорова И.К.], 1963. К вопросу о характере языка текстов
отсрова Пасхи. Советская этнография 2: 85-92. [In Russian].
Albert Davletshin
89
——1982. Исследование рапануйских текстов. В Ю.В. Кнорозов (ред.), Забытые
системы письма: Остров Пасхи, Великое Ляо, Индия (материалы к
дешифровке). Москва: Наука, C. 23-98. [In Russian].
Fischer, Steven R., 1997. Rongorongo, the Easter Island Script: History, Traditions,
Texts. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 14. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
Friedrich, Johannes, 1954. Entziferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen. Berlin:
Springer.
Geiseler, Wilhelm, 1883. Die Osterinsel: Eine Stätte prähistorischer Kultur in der
Südsee. Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler und Sohn.
Gelb, Ignace J., 1963. A Study of Writing: A Discussion of the General Principles
Governing the Use and Evolution of Writing. 2nd edition. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
Greenhill, Simon J. and Ross Clark, 2011. POLLEX-Online: The Polynesian Lexicon
Project Online. Oceanic Linguistics 50: 551–8 [see also http://pollex.org.nz/].
Guy, Jacques B. M., 1982. Fused glyphs in the Easter Island script. Journal of the
Polynesian Society 91: 445-47.
——1990. The lunar calendar of Tablet Mamari. Journal de la Société des Océanistes
91 (2): 135-49.
——2006. General properties of the Rongorongo writing. Rapa Nui Journal 20 (1): 53-66.
Horley, Paul, 2005. Allographic variations and statistical analysis of the Rongorongo
script. Rapa Nui Journal 19 (2): 107-16.
——2007. Structural analysis of Rongorongo inscriptions. Rapa Nui Journal 21 (1): 25-32.
——2009. Rongorongo script: Carving techniques and scribal corrections. Journal
de la Société des Océanistes 129: 249-61.
——2010. Rongorongo Tablet Keiti. Rapa Nui Journal 24 (1): 45-56.
——2011. Palaeographic analysis of the Santiago Staf. Rapa Nui Journal 25 (1): 31-43.
——2012. Rongorongo tablet from the Ethnological Museum, Berlin. Journal de la
Société des Océanistes 135: 243-56.
Horley, Paul and Georgia Lee, 2012. Easter Island’s birdman stones in the collection of
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rapa Nui Journal 26 (1): 5-20.
Houston, Stephen, Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos and David Stuart (eds), 2001. The
Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Houston, Stephen, David Stuart and John Robertson, 1998. Disharmony in Maya
hieroglyphic writing: linguistic change and continuity in Classic society. In A.
Ciudad Ruíz (ed.), Anatomía de una civilización. Aproximaciones interdisciplinarias
a la cultura maya. Publicaciones de la S.E.E.M. 4. Madrid: Sociedad Española de
Estudios Mayas, pp. 275-96.
Knorozov, Yuri V. [Кнорозов Ю.В.], 1952. Древняя письменность центральной
Америки. Советская этнография, 3: 100–18. [In Russian].
——1963. Письменность индейцев майя. Москва-Ленинград: Наука. [In Russian].
Kondratov, Alexander M. [Кондратов А.М.], 1969. Статистические методы
дешифровки некоторых письмён Востока и Средиземноморья. Дис. канд.
ист. наук, Институт Народов Востока АНCССР. [In Russian].
90
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
Kudrjavtsev, Boris G. [Кудрявцев Б.Г.], 1949. Письменность острова Пасхи.
Сборник музея антрополoгии и этнографии 11: 175-221. [In Russian].
Lacadena, Alfonso, 2008. Regional scribal traditions: Methodological implications
for the decipherment of Nahuatl Writing. The PARI Journal 8 (4): 1-22.
Lee, Georgia, 1992. Rock Art of Easter Island. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of
Archaeology.
Lounsbury, Floyd, 1984. Glyphic substitutions: Homophonic and synonymic. In J. S.
Justeson and L. R. Campbell (eds), Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing.
Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Monograph 9. Albany: SUNY, pp. 167-84.
Métraux, Alfred, 1940. Ethnology of Easter Island. Bernice P. Bishop Museum
Bulletin 160. Honolulu.
Miller, Mary and Simon Martin, 2004. Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. San Francisco:
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, and New York: Thames & Hudson.
Olderogge, Dmitrij A. [Ольдерогге Д.А.], 1949. Параллельные тексты таблиц
острова Пасхи “кохау ронгоронго”. Сборник музея антрополoгии и
этнографии, 11: 222-36. [In Russian].
Pérez de Lara, Jorge, n.d. Photograph of the Tablet of the 96 Hieroglyphs. Palenque
Resources: Monuments and Inscriptions. http://www.mesoweb.com/palenque/
monuments/96G/96G-photo.html.
Pozdniakov, Igor and Konstantin Pozdniakov, 2007. Rapanui writing and the Rapanui
language: Preliminary results of a statistical analysis. Forum for Anthropology
and Culture 3: 3-36.
Pozdniakov, Konstantin, 1996. Les bases du déchifrement de l’écriture de l’île de
Pâques. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 103: 289-303.
Pulgram, Ernst, 1951. Phoneme and grapheme: A parallel. Word 7: 15-20.
Rjabchikov, Sergej V., 1988. Allographic variations of Easter Island glyphs. Journal
of the Polynesian Society 97: 313-20.
Stuart, David, 1987. Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research Reports on Ancient Maya
Writing 14. Washington D.C.
——1990. The reading of “Directional Count Glyphs” in Maya inscriptions. Ancient
Mesoamerica 1(2): 213–24.
——2005. Sourcebook for the 29th Maya Hieroglyphic Forum, March 11-16, 2005.
Austin: Department of Art and Art History, The University of Texas.
Thomson, William J., 1891. Te Pito te Henua, or Easter Island. Report of the United
States National Museum for the Year Ending June 30, 1889. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution [Annual Reports of the Smithsonian Institution for
1889; pp. 447–552].
Wieczorek, Rafal M., 2011a. Astronomical content in Rongorongo Tablet Keiti.
Journal de la Société des Océanistes 132: 5-16.
——2011b. The double-body glyphs and palaeographic chronology in the Rongorongo
script. Rapa Nui Journal 25 (2): 31-40.
Wieczorek, Rafal M. and Paul Horley, 2015. The replicas of Rongorongo objects in the
Musée du quai Branly (Paris) Journal de la Société des Océanistes 140: 123-42.
Williams, Edna R., 1944. The Conlict of Homonyms in English. Yale Studies in
English 100. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Zhamoida, Alexander [Жамоида А.И.], 1996. Странички из школьной тетради
1938 года. Вестник российской академии наук 66(12): 1111-3. [In Russian].
Albert Davletshin
91
APPENDIX:
LIST OF SIGNS, THEIR DESCRIPTIVE NICKNAMES AND NUMBERS
ACCORDING TO THOMAS BARTHEL’S CATALOGUE OF 1958
#A “Seal” – 730
#B “Blenny Fish” – 790
#C “Two Vines Growing Up” – ?30b
#D “Tuber (a Kind of)” – 22c
#E “Leaved Vine Growing Up” – 3a
#F “Berried Stem” – 34
#G “Stem Stripped of Berries” – ?73b
#H “Turtle” – 280
#I “Head? on a X-shaped Base/Pedestal” – 99
#J “Sprout? on a X-shaped Base/Pedestal” – 522
#K “Calabash” – ?74a
#L “Gourd” – 45, 46
#M “Fish” – ?700a
#N “Spiny Fish” – unrecognised as a graphic design, transcribed 700f
#O “Fish Upside Down” – ?710b
#P “Swimming Fish” – unrecognised as a graphic design
#Q “Fish on Fishing Line” – 711
#R “Catch of Fish” – unrecognised as a graphic design
#S “Leaved Vine Hanging Down” – 3b
#T “Arm (Pointing Up)” – 6
#U “Arm Pointing Down” – unrecognised as a graphic design, transcribed 6x
#V “Comb” – ?50
#W “Wide-Handled Comb” – unrecognised as a graphic design, transcribed 50
#X “Worm” – unrecognised as a graphic design, transcribed 440
#Y “Eel” – 451
#Z “Hand-Tailed Eel”? – unrecognised as a graphic design, transcribed 451
ABSTRACT
In a writing system with a large number of signs, in particular in the case of a pictorial
script, some similarity of two graphic designs is an insuicient basis for considering
them to have the same reading value. This paper seeks to apply concepts developed in
the graphic analysis of other pictorial writing systems to the still undeciphered script
of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The following technical terms are adapted and deined
from both theoretical and practical points of view: sign, reading value, graphic design,
allograph, graphic variant, seeming graphic variant, iconic formula, and complete,
incomplete and false substitution. A modiied version of the substitution method
92
The Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui
(method of inverse sign substitution) is proposed for verifying equivalences and
diferences between readings values corresponding to the graphic designs analysed
in this paper. This method is based on the assumption that two graphic designs that
possess the same reading value are in free distribution, so the probability of sign
substitution between them should be close to the probability obtained by multiplying
the probabilities of their occurrences in texts. Application of these technical concepts
to the parallel texts discovered by Boris Kudrjavtzev shows that many graphically
similar signs with diferent reading values have not been previously recognised. This
conservative graphic analysis also has permitted the identiication of allographs in the
strict sense of the word, i.e., signs that look diferent but possess the same reading
value. However, technically speaking, “allograph” in the strict sense of the word is
an antonym for “graphic variant”. It is suggested that the method of iconic formulae
provides a useful foundation for future iconographic analysis of the highly pictorial
signs of the Kohau Rongorongo script.
Keywords: Kohau Rongorongo script, Rapa Nui (Easter Island), logosyllabic writing
systems, graphic analysis, allographs (homophonic signs), substitution method
CITATION AND AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS
Davletshin, Albert, 2017. Allographs, Graphic Variants and Iconic Formulae in the
Kohau Rongorongo Script of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Journal of the Polynesian
Society 126 (1): 61-92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15286/jps.126.1.61-92
1
1
Correspondence: Russian State University for the Humanities, Institute for Oriental
and Classical Studies, Miusskaya sq. 6, Moscow, GSP-3, 125993, Russia. Email:
aldavletshin@mail.ru