Rongorongo text N

Last updated

Text N of the rongorongo corpus, the smaller of two tablets in Vienna and therefore also known as the Small Vienna tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts. It repeats much of the verso of tablet E.

Contents

Other names

N is the standard designation, from Barthel (1958). Fischer (1997) refers to it as RR23.

Location

Museum für Völkerkunde, Vienna. Catalog # 22870.

There is a reproduction in the Musée de l'Homme, Paris.

Description

Small Vienna is a rectangular piece of Podocarpus latifolius wood (Orliac 2007), 25.5 × 5.2 × 2 cm, slightly convex but not fluted. It is heavily fire damaged, with one end splintered off, and badly cracked. The surface is corroded, but the glyphs are still legible.

Haberlandt (1886) noticed that N was carved with a different technique than the other tablets. In Fischer's words,

It appears that the glyphs were incised with a sharpened bone instead of a shark's tooth; this is principally evidenced by the shallowness and width of the contour grooves. It also displays secondary working with obsidian flakes to elaborate details within the finished contour lines. No other rongorongo inscription reveals such graphic extravagance.

Provenance

In 1882 an archaeological expedition aboard the SMS Hyäne visited Easter Island, and captain Wilhelm Geiseler purchased two tablets. The purchase had been arranged by Schlubach, the German consul in Valparaíso, at the request of Adolf Bastian, the director of the Ethnological Museum of Berlin. The tablets were given to the uncle of Schlubach's wife, Alexander Salmon, Jr, who then shipped three tablets, M, N, and O, to Schlubach. Several years later, when Schlubach returned to Hamburg, he sent just one of the tablets to Bastian and sold the other two privately to the Hamburg firm "Klée und Kocher". They were then sold to the Austrian Vice-Consul in Hamburg, Heinrich Freiherr von Westenholz, who donated them to Vienna's Museum für Völkerkunde in 1886.

Alexander Salmon, Jr, the manager of the Brander plantations on Easter Island who had transcribed and (poorly) translated the 'readings' that Jaussen obtained for his texts, encouraged the manufacture of Rapanui artworks, and several scholars, notably Métraux, believe the small Vienna tablet to be a forgery. However, Salmon never presented them as authentic, and Fischer (1997) accepts this text as genuine, noting the 'extravagance' of its carving.

Contents

Pozdniakov (1996) believes the entire text of the Small Vienna tablet is contained within the verso of E . Side b also shares a long sequence with tablet H and shorter sequences with tablets B and P . Most of side a appears to be a list of sequences introduced by 380.1+52, similar to the repeated 380.1 or 380.1+3 found on half a dozen other tablets.

Text

There are five lines on each side, with ~ 230 glyphs altogether.

A pair of fine lines has been ruled across the undamaged end of the tablet on side b. (Side a is too corroded to see this level of detail.) Fischer notes that the end of line Na1 is squeezed into the end of the tablet, and believes that it must therefore be the end of the inscription, with the likely beginning being line Nb5—the opposite of Barthel's presentation. However, Pozdniakov believes that text N is paraphrased in text Ev , which would establish Barthel's sides a and b as recto and verso. The basic correspondences are:

Small
Vienna
Keiti
Na2Ev2
Na3Ev4
Na4Ev5
Na5Ev6
Nb1Ev7
Nb3Ev8

However, some of text N may appear more than once on E, so it isn't a simple paraphrase.

Text N has been transcribed by Barthel (1958) and Fischer (1997). Barthel is more precise, as he worked from rubbings. Fischer is more complete, as he worked from the tablet itself and could see details too faint to appear in the rubbings. However, he is known to have made obvious errors on other texts.

Side a
Barthel Na.png
Side a, as traced by Barthel. The lines have been rearranged to reflect English reading order: Na1 at top, Na5 at bottom.
Fischer Na.png
Side a, as traced by Fischer.
Side b
Barthel Nb.png
Side b, as traced by Barthel. Nb1 is at top, Nb5 at bottom.
Fischer Nb.png
Side b, as traced by Fischer.

Related Research Articles

Rongorongo Undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Rongorongo is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. Numerous attempts at decipherment have been made, with none being successful. Although some calendrical and what might prove to be genealogical information has been identified, none of these glyphs can actually be read. If rongorongo does prove to be writing and proves to be an independent invention, it would be one of very few independent inventions of writing in human history.

Rongorongo text B One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Rongorongo is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. Text B of the rongorongo corpus, also known as Aruku Kurenga, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Rongorongo is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. Text C of the rongorongo corpus, also known as Mamari, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts. It contains the Rapa Nui calendar.

Rongorongo text D One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Rongorongo is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. Text D of the rongorongo corpus, also known as Échancrée ("notched"), is one of two dozen surviving texts. This is the tablet that started Jaussen's collection.

Rongorongo text E One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Rongorongo is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. Text E of the rongorongo corpus, also known as Keiti, is one of two dozen known rongorongo texts, though it survives only in photographs and rubbings.

Rongorongo text G One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Text G of the rongorongo corpus, the smaller of two tablets located in Santiago and therefore also known as the Small Santiago tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts. It may include a short genealogy.

Rongorongo text H One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Text H of the rongorongo corpus, the larger of two tablets located in Santiago and therefore also known as the Great or Large Santiago tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts, and one of three recording the so-called "Grand Tradition".

Text Q of the rongorongo corpus, the smaller of two tablets in St. Petersburg and therefore also known as the Small St Petersburg tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts, and one of three recording the so-called "Grand Tradition".

Text P of the rongorongo corpus, the larger of two tablets in St. Petersburg and therefore also known as the Great or Large St Petersburg tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts, and one of three recording the so-called "Grand Tradition".

Rongorongo text R One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Text R of the rongorongo corpus, the smaller of two tablets in Washington and therefore also known as the Small Washington tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Rongorongo text S One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Text S of the rongorongo corpus, the larger of two tablets in Washington and therefore also known as the Great or Large Washington tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Text K of the rongorongo corpus, also known as the (Small) London tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts. It nearly duplicates the recto of tablet G.

Text T of the rongorongo corpus, also known as Honolulu tablet 1 or Honolulu 3629, is the only fluted tablet in the Honolulu collection and one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Text U of the rongorongo corpus, carved on a beam, also known as Honolulu tablet 2 or Honolulu 3628, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

The fragmentary text W of the rongorongo corpus, also known as Honolulu tablet 4 or Honolulu 445, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Text V of the rongorongo corpus, the Honolulu oar, also known as Honolulu tablet 3 or Honolulu 3622, may be one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts. Its authenticity has been questioned.

Rongorongo text L One of the undeciphered texts of Easter Island

Text L of the rongorongo corpus, also known as (London) reimiro 2, is the smaller of two inscribed reimiro in London and one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Rongorongo text M

Text M of the rongorongo corpus, the larger of two tablets in Vienna and therefore also known as the Large or Great Vienna tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Text O of the rongorongo corpus, the Berlin tablet, is one of two dozen surviving rongorongo texts.

Decipherment of<i> rongorongo</i> Attempts to understand Easter Island script

There have been numerous attempts to decipher the rongorongo script of Easter Island since its discovery in the late nineteenth century. As with most undeciphered scripts, many of the proposals have been fanciful. Apart from a portion of one tablet which has been shown to deal with a lunar calendar, none of the texts are understood, and even the calendar cannot actually be read. It is not known if rongorongo directly represents the Rapa Nui language – that is, if it is a true writing system – and oral accounts report that experts in one category of tablet were unable to read other tablets, suggesting either that rongorongo is not a unified system, or that it is proto-writing that requires the reader to already know the text. There are three serious obstacles to decipherment, assuming that rongorongo is writing: the small number of remaining texts, comprising only 15,000 legible glyphs; the lack of context in which to interpret the texts, such as illustrations or parallel texts which can be read; and the fact that the modern Rapa Nui language is heavily mixed with Tahitian and is unlikely to closely reflect the language of the tablets—especially if they record a specialized register such as incantations—while the few remaining examples of the old language are heavily restricted in genre and may not correspond well to the tablets either.

References