Longorongo
The Unreadable Character of Rapa-Nui Woodblock
▲ Cover of events — opening records
The Longorongo Woodblock is followed by symbols that look like people, animals, and tools. There are few remaining data and no consensus decryption because the transmission has been broken.
The biggest barrier to Longorongo is not code difficulty but a broken transmission with a small corpus.
Prologue: A Record-Breaking Night
When I unfolded the incident data on the desk, the first thing I noticed was not the correct answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were too clear, and some times were entirely empty. People try to explain the whole incident by holding on to a clear scene, but I marked the empty section first. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but sometimes the distance between them is too far.
When it became known to Europeans in the 19th century, few passengers were left to read characters. Woodblocks are scattered across museums around the world. The symbol
I didn't see this event as a work to confirm a known ending. The records were arranged in chronological order, the routes of the objects were drawn separately, and the sightings and interpretations were marked in different colors. The most famous explanation was then deliberately reviewed at the end. Because if you first read a famous hypothesis, all the clues appear to exist for that hypothesis.
▲ Reconfiguration on site — Last identified line of movement
Case Files: What I Could Believe
| Number | Verified Records | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | is described as an array of reverse boost pedons that reads the board when changing lines. | High |
| 2 | The number of woodblocks widely recognized as genuine is very small. | High |
| 3 | Iteration and structure of symbols show the possibility of a recording system, but whether or not they are complete characters is also discussed. There are suggestions that you have read part of the | the middle |
| 4 | calendar or genealogy, but it has not been agreed upon as a whole decryption. | the middle |
There are language units, details of reading directions, what symbols are among syllables, words, and memory aids, and the timing of production of each board remains.
The sentence 'unexplained' is not the same as the sentence 'supernatural' or 'someone intended'. I didn't use the blanks as evidence.
▲ Timeline — Flow before and after events
Reconfiguring Scene: The Last Definite Point
I changed the place where the incident took place to a real route rather than a stage in my head. I divided the starting point, the last check point, and the place of discovery, and calculated the time required in the meantime. Several dramatic descriptions of later generations were missing in the process. Instead, the recorded sound, weather, means of transportation, and the location of objects came forward. The fictional atmosphere arose from the texture of that very fact. There was no need to add an unidentified secret passage or an unnamed accomplice.
When I reconstructed the last scene, I did not make up the character's mind. Fear, planning, error, and fatigue can cause the same behavior. So, I wrote down my actions first and left my emotions only to the extent possible. The events became less colorful but more specific thanks to this principle.
Clue 1. Symbols are described as an array of reverse boosters that are read by rotating the board when changing lines.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if only this clue is taken away. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "The number of woodblocks widely accepted as genuine is very small." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that does not pass the question of "How much will the statistics of symbol order show the language structure?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. The number of woodblocks widely accepted as authentic is very small.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if only this clue is taken away. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "Symbol repetition and structure show the possibility of a recording system, but complete text is also discussed." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question, "If the calendar candidate is real, can it serve as the criterion for decoding another version?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 2 — An mismatched piece
Clue 3. Symbolic repetition and structure show the possibility of a recording system, but whether or not it is completely written is also discussed.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If we separate this clue, a conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "There are suggestions that I have read some of the calendar or genealogy, but it was not agreed upon as a whole decoding." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that fails to pass the question, "How does production age cross the contact influence hypothesis with reader invention?" turns a blind eye to the other records instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 3 — Evidence that shakes the hypothesis
Clue 4. There are suggestions that I have read some of the calendar or genealogy, but it has not been agreed upon as a whole decoding.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If only this clue is separated, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "Symbols are described as a reverse Boostedon arrangement that reads the board when changing lines." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that fails to pass the question "How much will the statistics of the order of symbols show the language structure?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining a single clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
Putting the three hypotheses on the same scale, the
hypothesis did not evaluate them in a nice sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they can withstand opposite evidence were written down, respectively. A complete explanation of one clue is not a good hypothesis if the other three are discarded.
Hypothesis A. Raffanui's mixed-syllable character
The advantage of this explanation is to accept the clue, "Symbols are described by an inverted boost-pedon arrangement that reads the board when changing lines." I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and re-stated the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there was always a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain, "Symbolic repetition and structure show the possibility of a recording system, but complete character availability is also discussed." Anything can be explained by continuing to add exceptions to preserve the hypothesis, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the exceptions exceeded two. Conversely, the score was raised only when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis B. Non-voice symbols for remembering ritual songs and genealogy
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue that "the number of woodblocks widely recognized as genuine is very small" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what judgment and moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "there are suggestions that I have read some of the calendar or genealogy, but it is not agreed upon by total decipherment." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, you can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis C. A limited recording system developed independently after European letter contact
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue, "Symbol repetition and structure show the possibility of a recording system, but complete character availability is also discussed" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and re-stated the time of the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and where he moved to the next place one sentence at a time. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it doesn't fully explain "the symbol is described by the reverse boost-pedon arrangement that reads the board when changing lines." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, you can explain anything, but such an explanation doesn't predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
▲ Hypothesis Comparison — Explanatory power and gaps
The conclusions I abandoned
I was also drawn to the most famous explanation at the beginning of the investigation. It organized the case in one sentence and gave everything intention. However, when the data were compared, the explanation required a new coincidence for each blank. Then I erased the conclusion and started again. Good reasoning was more about removing unnecessary assumptions than adding anything.
It is difficult to test the hypothesis due to the lack of short and repetitive parallel statements. It is easy to create the meaning you want if you give a character value without a single translation.
In particular, the details repeated on the Internet and later testimonies were separated from the original record. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. The possibility that one wrong sentence was duplicated was first confirmed. The size of the case decreased after this process, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
▲ Counterfeit Checks — The Conclusion I Abandoned
Final Reason: The Results I Reached
The biggest barrier to Longorongo is not code difficulty but a broken transmission with a small corpus.
This conclusion is not a complete final decision. It is a direction that requires the least assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explains the most clues at the same time. It can be corrected when new evidence comes out. However, it is also clear that the conclusion changes when it comes out. Reliable original records, verifiable legal and scientific data, and independent evidence that directly connects objects and people are needed.
I don't write that I closed the case. Instead, write how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of the mystery is not that anything is possible. It is in finding out what can be thrown away among the possible explanations.
▲ Final Judgment — Description that requires the least assumption
Additional Investigation Records 1. Redraw the Timeline
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured, and only the record was written, "The symbol is explained by the reverse boost ropedon arrangement that reads the board when changing the line." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
I put a hypothesis on it that it was a combination of syllables and slogans in which Rapanui was recorded. Everything seemed to fit at first. However, when the question "How much will the statistics of symbolic order show the language structure?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure questioning. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation records 2. Missing links
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only a record of "The number of woodblocks widely recognized as genuine is very small." Events that I thought I had already known will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a non-voice symbol for remembering consciousness songs and genealogy." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "If the calendar candidate is real, can it serve as a standard for deciphering other editions?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 3. Eyewitness Distance
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only the record saying, "Symbol repetition and structure show the possibility of a recording system, but complete character availability is discussed." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of that, I posted a hypothesis that it is a limited recording system that has developed independently since contact with European letters. At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "How does production age differentiate between independent invention and contact influence hypothesis?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation record 4. The path through which the item passed
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was covered up and only the record was left, "There is a suggestion that I have read some of the calendar or genealogy, but it has not been agreed upon by total decoding." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares without filling them with imagination. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
I put a hypothesis on it that it was a combination of syllables and slogans in which Rapanui was recorded. Everything seemed to fit at first. However, when the question "How much will the statistics of symbolic order show the language structure?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure questioning. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 5. The Temptation of False Clues
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured, and only the record was written, "The symbol is explained by the reverse boost ropedon arrangement that reads the board when changing the line." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a non-voice symbol for remembering consciousness songs and genealogy." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "If the calendar candidate is real, can it serve as a standard for deciphering other editions?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 6. Reconstruction of the Last Scene
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only a record of "The number of woodblocks widely recognized as genuine is very small." Events that I thought I had already known will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of that, I posted a hypothesis that it is a limited recording system that has developed independently since contact with European letters. At first, everything seemed to fit together. However, when the question "How does production age differentiate between independent invention and contact influence hypothesis?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
▲ End of investigative record — questions still to be asked
· British Museum — Rongorongo collection
· Metropolitan Museum — Rongorongo tablet
※ This article is a commentary in the form of personal investigation records based on public records and reliable data. We have distinguished between facts and reasoning, and when a new official announcement is made, the judgment is updated.
Image Source and Edit
We used Wikipedia Commons public license data cut, ratio adjustment, and color correction to fit the body flow. Circles with generated images are not included in the list below.
- Rongorongo R-a Atua-Mata-Riri.jpg — unknown (for GFDL, cite source above as old copyright holder), CC BY-SA 3.0
- L'écriture, p. 127.jpg — Unknown author Unknown author, Public domain
- Rongorongo K-v Small London.jpg — unknown (for GFDL, cite source above as old copyright holder), CC BY-SA 3.0
- Chile-03436 - Rongorongo (49073321772).jpg — Dennis G. Jarvis, CC BY-SA 2.0
- Rongorongo F-a Stephen-Chauvet fragment.jpg — unknown (for GFDL, cite source above as old copyright holder), CC BY-SA 3.0
- Rongorongo G-r Small Santiago.jpg — unknown (for GFDL, cite source above as old copyright holder), CC BY-SA 3.0
- Rongorongo G-v Small Santiago.jpg — unknown (for GFDL, cite source above as old copyright holder), CC BY-SA 3.0
- Rongorongo R-b Atua-Mata-Riri.jpg — unknown (for GFDL, cite source above as old copyright holder), CC BY-SA 3.0
- Rongorongo tablet (4275771908).jpg — christopherhu, CC BY 2.0
- Rongorongo reversible glyphs.jpg — Photography: Penarc at wikivoyage , Graphic design: Basile Morin, CC BY-SA 1.0