A Review of Wieczorek and Guy's Papers on the Rongorongo Script

POLYNESIA NEWSLETTER No 15, April 2018 Polynesia Newsletter [Editor-in-Chief Sergei V. Rjabchikov]. – April 2018. – Number 15. The address of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial office is as follows: 1/39 Krasnoarmejskaja Street, 350063 Krasnodar, Russia. The journal Polynesia Newsletter was established by the Sergei Rjabchikov Foundation, Krasnodar, Russia. CONTENTS [A Review:] 1. Wieczorek, R., 2017. Putative Duplication Glyph in the Rongorongo Script. Cryptologia, 41(1), pp. 55-72. 2. Guy, J.B.M., 2003. Some Observations Drawn from the Putative Genealogy of Tablet G. Rapa Nui Journal, 17(1), pp. 42-43. 3. Guy, J.B.M., 1982. Fused Glyphs in the Easter Island Script. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 91(3), pp. 445-447. Tatiana Popova 2 . . (About One Rapanui String Figure; in Russian) Sergei V. Rjabchikov 6 Keywords: writing, rongorongo, folklore, rock art, string figure, string game, Rapanui, Rapa Nui, Easter Island, Polynesia, Proto-Polynesian, PPN CopyrТРСt © 2018 by Sergei V. Rjabchikov. All rights reserved. 1 1. Wieczorek, R., 2017. Putative Duplication Glyph in the Rongorongo Script. Cryptologia, 41(1), pp. 55-72. 2. Guy, J.B.M., 2003. Some Observations Drawn from the Putative Genealogy of Tablet G. Rapa Nui Journal, 17(1), pp. 42-43. 3. Guy, J.B.M., 1982. Fused Glyphs in the Easter Island Script. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 91(3), pp. 445-447. Tatiana Popova They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night. The Emperor‟s New Clothes, Hans Christian Andersen, translated by Jean Hersholt Wieczorek and Guy have analyzed the genealogy inscribed on the Small Santiago tablet (G) and once discovered by Butinov and Knorozov (1957: 15, table VII, fragments 1 – 6), see figure 1. I use myself the nomenclature and readings of the Easter Island hieroglyphs offered by Rjabchikov (1987: figure 1; 1993: ПТРurО 1; 1994: ПТРurО 1). BКrtСОl‟s (1958) МlКssТПТМКtТon oП РlвpСs Тs lКЛОlОН аТtС tСО lОttОr B. Figure 1. The genealogy contains six names; it begins at the end of the list and ends at its commencement. According to Rjabchikov (1988; 2010), the names are introduced by the grammatical article of the personal names a (glyph 6) six times and by another article of the personal names e (glyph 73) one time. We see that the first four names have such a structure: X1, X2 X1 Y, X3 X2 Y, X4 X3 Y, where Y (glyph 102) ure mОКns „son.‟ TСО ПТПtС nКmО Тs Б5 В, КnН the sixth name is X6 without Y. What does it mean? Over a period of years one group ruled on Rapanui, and then the other began to reign. This idea was offered by Butinov (1960). I think this proposal is intrinsically probable. Rjabchikov (2010: 15; 2017a: 10; personal communication, March 3, 2018) reads the names as it is shown in table 1. Table 1. The glyphs The readings, translations 79var Heke „TСО OМtopus‟ 11 79var 102 Pakia Heke ure „TСО SОКl, son oП tСО OМtopus‟ 68 11 102 Honu Pakia ure „TСО TurtlО, son oП tСО SОКl‟ 20var 69 Tupa Moko Honu ure „Tupa from the Momoko group, son of the TurtlО‟ 56-6 17 102 Po-a Tea ure „Po-a Tea = the DКаn, son (аТtСout tСО nКmО!)‟ 62-19 Toki „TСО AНгО or AбО‟ 2 The comments It was the divine Octopus supporting the heavens. It was the god Tangaroa. It was the god Rongo. It was king Tupa-Aringa-Anga of the tribal union Hanau-Eepe. The ethnicon Moko denotes the tribal union Hanau-Momoko (Ko Tuu). It was Poia (the Dawn) who was a leader of rebels in A.D. 1682. It was another leader of rebels known as king Ko te Pu-i-te-Toki later. It should not be forgotten that the victors wrote and write history. The western tribes (HanauMomoko, Tuu = Miru etc.) defeated the eastern tribes (Hanau-Eepe, Hotu-Iti = Tupa-Hotu etc.) in A.D. 1682 (per Rjabchikov). The new heroes composed the royal genealogy and put their gods (Heke, Tangaroa, Rongo) into it. The memory about the last eastern king Tupa-Aringa-Anga was strong yet, and he was remembered as a progenitor. Actually, the inscription demonstrated the continuity of the power. Our colleagues, Wieczorek and Guy, as new glyphbreakers prefer to obtain this clue to the mysterious script, see figure 2. Figure 2. TСОв НООm tСКt Пrom tСТs ОquКtТon “СКlП ЛОТnР” КnН “tСrОО rounНs” (РlвpС 17) = “ЛОТnР,” КnН oППОr that glyph 17 (B002) is the operator of doublings. It was, in my opinion, the very odd conclusion. Please notice that the glyph in the right part of that equation is the fused glyph indeed. In the light of this study consider the parallel records on the Tahua tablet (A) and the Small Washington tablet (R), see figure 3. Figure 3. It is apparent that glyph 20 НОpТМtТnР tСО МrКЛ СКs Тts ЯКrТКnt, tСО МrКЛ‟s МlКа РlвpС (20var). By the way, the records are decoded (Rjabchikov 2012: 7-8, figure 3) and they inform that the god TikiMakemake created the goddess Ungu (the Crab). The corresponding record made with the help of Roman letters is presented in the manuscripts found on Easter Island (Heyerdahl and Ferdon 1965: figure147). Butinov (1960) was the first who read the octopus glyph 79var as Heke and the claw glyph 20var as Tupa (the Land Crab) in the genealogy on the Small Santiago tablet. Per Rjabchikov (2017b: 16-17, figure 22), the following glyph combinations (see figure 3) read in this manner: cf. glyphs 1 26-19 TikiMaki (the sun god Tiki-Makemake), 4-19-5-19 tukituki (to copulate), 73 26-19 e Maki (the god Makemake), 73 31 e MAKE (the god Makemake) and 20var = 20 Ungu (the Crab = the moon goddess). Moreover, Rjabchikov (1988) found one of the names from the examined genealogy on the Small St. Petersburg tablet (Q). The parallel texts on the Great St. Petersburg tablet (P) and on the first one are presented in figure 4. Figure 4. 3 Here the name of the intrepid man Poi (Poia, ОtМ.) „TСО DКаn‟ Тn tСО Пorms Po-a tea or Po-a roa tea „TСО DКаn‟ or „tСО РrОКt (rulОr) „TСО DКаn‟‟ Тs rОtКТnОН. RКpКnuТ tea „аСТtО‟ Тs tСО НОtОrmТnКtТЯО Тn this record, cf. also Rapanui otea „НКаn.‟ GlвpС 21 ko is the article of personal names in both cases. It is plain that the Guy-Wieczorek theory about glyph 17 (B002) is wrong. Now I offer to consider the parallel records on the Great St. Petersburg and Great Santiago (H) tablets, see figure 5. We know that Guy reads fused glyphs from bottom to top only. Is it correct? Figure 5. 1, Pr 4-5: 6-7 6-4 19-6 5-15 6 26-17-26-17 3 Hatu hotu, Ku(a)ha atua roa, hamatemate marama. (The god) Hatu (= Tiki-te-Hatu) produced (the magic words Kuaha atua roa „tСО РrОКt РoН Kuaha‟ sounНОН) tСО НОКtС oП tСО moon (= the moon goddess Hina-kauhara). 2, Hr 5: 6/7 6/4 19-6 6 26/17var-26-17 3 Hatu hotu, Ku(a)ha, hamatemate marama. (The god) Hatu (= Tiki-teHatu) produced (the magic word Kuaha „(tСО РrОКt РoН) Kuaha‟ sounНОН) tСО НОКtС oП tСО moon (= tСО moon Рoddess Hina-kauhara). (See Rjabchikov 2011: 7, figure 3; 2017c: 8-9, figure 13; personal communication, March 12, 2018.) АО МКn sОО Пor oursОlЯОs tСКt Guв‟s ТНОК Тs truО Пor segments (a): both fused glyphs read from bottom to top (6/7 = 6-7 and 6/4 = 6-4)! But please compare both segments (c) in the same figure. So, several glyphs read 26-17-26-17 matemate in the first instance; if you agree with Guy, in the parallel segment glyphs 26/17var-26-17 read 26-26-17-17. It is nonsense. Having rОКН tСО “МТrМlО” Кs К ЯКrТКnt oП РlвpС 17 Тn tСТs МontОбt (МП. onО “rСomЛ” oП РlвpС 17var ТnstОКН oП tСrОО “rСomЛТ or МТrМlОs” oП РlвpС 17 in figure 4, fragment 1), the same glyphs 26/17var-26-17 read 26-17-26-17 matemate. The details of the inscriptions are presented in table 2. Table 2. Pr 4-5 Hr 5 The readings, translations 6-7 Hatu (= the god-creator Tiki-te-Hatu) 6-4 hotu, hatu „to proНuМО‟ 19-6 Kuaha (the name of a deity; the magical word of the creation) 5-15 atua roa „tСО РrОКt НОТtв‟ 6 a „tСО НОПТnТtО КrtТМlО Тn the Old RapanuТ lКnРuКРО‟ 26-17 mate „НОКtС; to НТО‟ 26-17 mate „НОКtС; to НТО,‟ hence the word matemate is the reduplication of the word mate. 3 hina, marama „tСО moon‟ TСus, Guв‟s tСОorв МonМОrnТnР tСО ПusОН РlвpСs Тs ТnМorrОМt too. SuМС МompounН РlвpСs rОКН Пrom bottom to top and vice versa (as in the Maya hieroglyphic script). I should like to add some remarks on the nature of the Easter Island script. In the 1960s one team of Russian mathematicians, Probst, Ostroukhova and Pavlova, studied the rongorongo with the aid of computers (Ostroukhova 1967). The entire records were divided into blocks (words and so on), and the statistical analysis was carried out. First, relying on those data, Kondratov (1967: 46, table) compared the frequencies of appearance of new signs in the rongorongo and in the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions. He deduced that the first also was a hieroglyphic (highly organized logo-syllabic) script. Therefore the speculations of the new glyph4 breaker Davletshin (2016: 207, figure 1) about some pictographic features of the Pascuan writing are incorrect. Second, Kondratov (1976: 537) compared the absolute and relative frequencies of reduplicated glyphs in the whole corpus of the rongorongo script (about 5% and about 10% respectively) and of reduplicated morpСОmОs Тn tСО RКpКnuТ ПolklorО tОбt “Hotu Matu’a” (КЛout 4% КnН КЛout 8% rОspОМtТЯОlв). Both results were in close agreement. Thus, the ancient Easter Islanders had not needed to devise and to use the peculiar glyph denoting the doubling of glyphs. Conclusions Only formal analysis of the rongorongo writing can give a reliable key for the decipherment. Both Wieczorek КnН Guв НТН not МrКМk tСО mвstОrТous МoНО. On tСО otСОr СКnН, RУКЛМСТkoЯ‟s ТnЯОstТРКtТons СКЯО disclosed the grammatical and lexical structure of the script. Englert (1974: 253-254) noticed that the rongorongo studies were connected with enormous difficulties of the interpretations of the obtained data. Obviously, Rjabchikov goes through this stage, and the others stayed at the beginning of the long way. References Barthel, T.S., 1958. Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift. Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter. Butinov, N.A., 1960. Korotkoukhie i dlinnoukhie na ostrove Paskhi (Po materialam kohau rongo-rongo). Sovetskaya etnografiya, 1, pp. 72–82. Butinov, N.A. and Y.V. Knorozov, 1957. Preliminary Report on The Study of the Written Language Of Easter Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 66(1), pp. 5-17. Davletshin, A., 2016. Word-Signs and Sign Groups in the Kohau Rongorongo Script of Easter Island. In: I. Conrich and H. MüМklОr (eds.) Rapa Nui – Easter Island: Cultural and Historical Perspectives. Berlin: Frank und Timme, pp. 201-216. Englert, S., 1974. La Tierra de Hotu Matu’a. Historia в etnologia de la Isla de PasМua. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile. Heyerdahl, T. and E.N. Ferdon, Jr. (eds.), 1965. Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and East Pacific. Vol. 2. Miscellaneous Papers. Monographs of the School of American Research and the Kon-Tiki Museum, No 24, Part 2. Chicago – New York – San Francisco: Rand McNally. KonНrКtoЯ, A.M., 1967. FormulК “вКгвkК Тб”. Znanie-sila, 2, pp. 45-47. KonНrКtoЯ, A.M., 1976. PТs‟mОnnost‟ ostroЯК PКskСТ. In: I.M. DТКkonoПП (ОН.) Taвnв drevnikh pis’men: ProЛlemв deshifrovki. Moscow: Progress, pp. 531-538. Ostroukhova, Z.M., 1967. Issledovanie neraschlenennykh na slova protoindiyskikh i rapanuyskikh textov s pomoshМh’вu vвМhislitel’noв mashinв. Moscow: VINITI. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1987. Progress Report on the Decipherment of the Easter Island Writing System. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 96(3), pp. 361-367. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1988. Note on Butinov and Knorozov‟s Investigation. Rapa Nui Journal, 2(2), p 6. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1993. Rapanuyskie texty (k probleme rasshifrovki). Etnograficheskoe obozrenie, 4, pp. 124-141. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1994. Tayny ostrova Paskhi. Vol. 3. Krasnodar: Ecoinvest. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2010. On the Methodology of Decoding the Rongorongo Script: Statistical Analysis or Distributive One? Polynesian Research, 1(3), pp. 3-35. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2011. Remarks about Fused Glyphs in the Rongorongo Writing. Polynesian Research, 2(1), pp. 310. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2012. AЛout AttОnЛorouРС‟s RКpКnuТ StКtuОttО. Polynesian Research, 3(4), pp. 5-10. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2017a. The Rapanui Petroglyphs Tell of Octopuses. Polynesia Newsletter, 10, pp. 6-14. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2017b. The Ancient Astronomy of Easter Island: The Mamari Tablet Tells (Part 2). arXiv:1702.08355: <https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1702/1702.08355.pdf>. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2017c. The Ancient Astronomy of Easter Island: The Mamari Tablet Tells (the Last Part). Polynesia Newsletter, 11, pp. 2-30. 5 Ч . . Abstract. About One Rapanui String Figure by S.V. Rjabchikov. This paper is devoted to the study of the sОmКntТМs oП tСО strТnР ПТРurО “Hanga Pakia”. SomО rongorongo records, folklore texts (songs) and rock drawings are decoded also. , , , , , . - . (RУКЛМСТkoЯ 1995a; 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999a; 2000a; 2010). , bell 1971: 432, N.O.B. 52), . . 1. - ( - ) (CКmp- . 1. , Hanga Varevare “Hanga Pakia” ( ) . , (T) , . 2. - .Э Ahu Orongo (Ahu o Rongo), (Popova 2015: 555). , Hanga Pakia, . 2. T 3: (a) ( ) 6-28 11 … Hanga Pakia, … Э (b) 51 (102) 21 44 (102) 6 4/33 ke ko Taha a atua, ( , ) “ ”), (c) 13 1 6-4 4/33 (102) kore Tiki-Hatu atua. ( ) ( 6-28 hanga – “ (E), , (N) ” , Ч (I), 6 – Hanga Pakia, (ke = keke) ( : . , Tiki-te-Hatu). . 3. : . . 3. 1 (Ev 4): 6-4 6-28 24 A atua Hanga ai. – “ ( : )– HКnРК AТ”. 2 (Na 4): 6-4 32 6-28 15-25 A atua ua Hanga Rohu. – “ ( : )– HКnРК RКu”. 3 (I 1-2): 67-30-3c (инв.) 68 (102) 29 (102) 48-15 (102) 6-28 Apina HINA URI honu, rua uri hanga. – “( Apina, ( ) (rua) – ”. 4 (I 3): 6-(102)-28 19 Hanga Kua. – “ HКnРК KuКkuК”. 5 (I 8): 33 6-28 (102) 69 11 VAI Hanga Moko pakia. – “ Hanga o Hiro, ( ) ”. ) . Te Haangai (MцtrКuб 1940: 8, fig. 1) < Te Hanga Ai. , Hanga Rau ( , ) – (Hanga Roa) (Barthel 1978: 365). Hanga Pakia Hanga Varevare, Apina Nui Apina Iti . . Apina , (Barthel 1978: 90). (h)uri “ ”, . huri – “ ” uri – “ ”. Tangaroa-uri ( , ), , “( ) Tangaroa ( )”. Kuokuo ( ) , , (Barthel 1978: 79). Mataka Roa (Heyerdahl, Ferdon 1965: fig. 143-146; 2010), Hanga Kuakua, o/a. E : Hanga ohiro a pakipaki renga (Barthel 1978: 80). Hanga Ohio, Anakena Hiro. , ( . pakipaki renga – “ ”). ( . moko – “ ”) Hiro, (Barthel 1978: 251; 1989). , rohu, rahu, rou, rau “ ; ; ; ; ” (Rjabchikov 2012: 566, 569). , “Hanga Pakia” , 40, 41, 42 ere, are. (Rjabchikov 1995b; 2001; Rjabchikov 2017a; 2018), (h)ere “ ; ; ; ; ”, here hua “He timo te akoako”, , “ ” ( . hua – “ ; ; ; ”, hua –“ ”, hua a tahi – “ ”), (h)ere, . akaere – “ ; ”, rere – “ ” reretahi [rere tahi] – “ ”. , , tirea, ti – , a rea – “ ; ”– (Best 1922: 28). , (PPN) *rere – “ ; ” *re, , ( )– . , (PPN) *re “ , , , ”. 40 ere, are “ ; ; ” (Rjabchikov 1999b; 2000b). , poki ere – “ ; ( )” (Campbell 1971: 265, 500). “Ei ia manu e” (Campbell 1999: 216-217): 7 , Ei ia manu e, Manu tere ere ite. E mai tu avi o tou tino, Ere roa tu nei. . ( .) ave – “ , avi manu , , tinorita , (Campbell 1971: 93). , . “ ”– hopu – ; : ”, . ” (Barthel 1957: 72), Makemake Haua); ite – “ ”, . iti – “ ere ite = (h)ere iti – “ ; : tu = tuu – “ ”; tou = toua – “ ; : ”, . tino – “ ”( . seюorita – “ , mata toa, – - hei – “ , ”; ”; “ . ”( ”; touo – “ ). ” tou – “ ”; “Ka tupu ana o te poki” (Campbell 1971: 502): Ka tupu ana o te poki. Papa-haha-a-pura, Papa-haha-a-pura. Taotao poki. Ka ui mai e Hiva ere ,( ( Ki te manu topa tahi, Ki te manu topa tahi ere. , ( (= ) (= ). ?). ). ), ( ) ) ( ) ( ( )( ( Х , , ), . .) “E te ragi riva ee” (Kozmin 2010): E te ragi riva ee. Tuu huruhuru Teatea ena, Tuu koro, re nehenehe, ( – ( (= (re = ere, here), Tuu raa mahana ena, Tuu mata vai ena, E hoa mai ena ) (= ) Mo maa tou, mo hohopu. - ( . ) , (= ), , .) , )( ) ) (= hopu. “Meamea toua mamari” (Kozmin 2010): Meamea toua mamari, Moana e rito mata. ” - . Makemake (MцtrКux 1957: 130). , : ei – “ hehei – “ ” , - . , , . . (= 8 ). - hei, Ч Uriuri, teatea. Kaapee ai ka Koro, re ana ni. , (kope = ) ( ( .) , ; , , ”. –“ ; , , ” ni “ , , , . . ) , ) ( ) [ - . - (MцtrКuб 1940: 336). Э Tiki-Makemake. Ч – . – . ”, . nininini – “ , , , (= ] )( , anani re (= ere, here). (Q) (P) (Rjabchikov 2017b: . 4. 7, fig. 7). . 4. 1 (Qv 2): 4-4/33 17 45-45-45 27 6-45 41 Atuaatua/ua te Pua-Pua-Pua ro(h)u hopu are (ere). Pua-Pua ( Pua) (hopu) (are, ere). 2 (Pr 11): 4-4/33 17 45 50 45 30 6-45 41 Atuaatua/ua te Pua-Hi-Pua ana hopu are (ere). -Pua ( Pua) (hopu) (are, ere). , Tiki-Makemake, , ”, hi – “ ”. , , ”, hihi – “ , 40 ere, are ( “ ; ; , , (Lee 1992: 78, fig. 4.58), . . 5. , . ana – “ ”, ; ) ; ”( pu – “ ). , , . 5. 9 Pua- Pua ( Orongo, . - Pua- . ), , - . 5 – 7. Ava o Kiri , , , pe – “ Э – , ”( . 103 pe – “ ”). , , 40 ere, are ( ; hakapee no kai hoao – “ , , Tinirau , . . (Rjabchikov 2014: 166-167, fig. 5a, b). (Omohi) ) , Ahu Raai (Lee 1992: 177, fig. 6.13), . , . Hina, ). ” 103 pe . - Omohe ( - . 6. . 6. , (MцtrКuб 1940: 173). , . fig. 2), . , , 40 ere, are. :“ !” , . 7. , , Hanga o Teo (Lee 2004: 32, . 7. . , . , , , 10 , , (Rjabchikov 2014: 163, fig. 1). 41 ere, are. . , . “Ki te mate mo tae ea” (Kozmin 2010): He hore, he oho e te poihuihu o te vaka i te vai. Koia ko hati atu te kutakuta, ka oo, ka oho era. He tuu pe he mee ena ai. , ( ) Mate ka manau era o te tae ea. Ka tuu era ki runga o te hakanonoga, E ko tae ui mai raa e tuu vai ereere era. ( ( ) (= , ) – : , , . .) ) (nuu = nuku) ( , A (ereere). ( . (= ( (hau). ) ) ( ). .) pe , , hakanononga (MцtrКuб 1940: 172). “Hanga Pakia”, . .) ) , – ereere), , ,( . Ku ui ana ki tuu nuu era ki a au. . . 5. , . 40 ere, are, ( - (h)ere ( , , , . .). , ( , . , - . , . ., 1989. // С а а . № 6, . 122-125. , . ., 2001. // , . ., , . , , . . ( .) И а а аа . – : , c. 69 -71. , . ., 2010. // Вi i а i “ а: а, а, i а ”. № 27(4), c. 35-53. Barthel, T.S., 1957. Die Hauptgottheit der Osterinsulaner // JahrЛuМh des Museum für Völkerkunde гu Leipгig. Bd. 15, S. 60-82. Barthel, T.S., 1978. The Eighth Land. The Polynesian Discovery and Settlement of Easter Island. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Best, E., 1922. The Maori Division of Time // Dominion Museum Monograph 4. Wellington: W.A.G. Skinner, Government Printer. Campbell, R., 1971. La herencia musical de Rapanui. SКntТКРo НО CСТlО: EНТtorТКl AnНrцs BОllo. Campbell, R., 1999. Mito y realidad de Rapanui: La cultura de la Isla de Pascua. Santiago de Chile: Editorial AnНrцs BОllo. Heyerdahl, T., Ferdon, E.N. Jr. (eds.), 1965. Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and East Pacific. Vol. 2. Miscellaneous Papers. Monographs of the School of American Research and the Kon-Tiki Museum, No 24, Part 2. Chicago – New York – San Francisco: Rand McNally. Kozmin, A., 2010. Rapa Nui // Polynesian Songs and Chants. <http://starling.rinet.ru/kozmin/polynesia/rapanui.php>. (Accessed on March 23, 2018). Lee, G., 1992. The Rock Art of Easter Island. Symbols of Power, Prayers to the Gods. Los Angeles: The Institute of Archaeology Publications (UCLA). Lee, G., 2004. RКpК NuТ‟s SОК CrОКturОs // Rapa Nui Journal. Vol. 18(1), pp. 31-38. MцtrКuб, A., 1940. Ethnology of Easter Island // Bishop Museum Bulletin 160. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. MцtrКuб, A., 1957. Easter Island: A Stone-Age Civilization of the Pacific. London: Andre Deutsch. Popova, T., 2015. The Rapanui rongorongo Schools. Some Additional Notes // Anthropos. Bd. 110(2), S. 553-555. 11 Rjabchikov, S.V., 1995a. String Figure Helps Decode Ancient Script // Bulletin of the International String Figure Association. Vol. 2, p. 191. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1995b. On Inscription in a Basalt Slab // L’лМho de Rapa Nui. T. 8(30), p. 19. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1996. Rongorongo versus Kai-kai: A Look at Parallel Themes in Easter Island‟s Mysterious Script and String Figure Repertoire // Bulletin of the International String Figure Association. Vol. 3, pp. 14-20. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1997. Rongorongo versus Kai-kКТ: A SОМonН Look Кt TСОmОs LТnkТnР EКstОr IslКnН‟s MвstОrТous Script with Its String Figure Repertoire // Bulletin of the International String Figure Association. Vol. 4, pp. 30-55. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1998. Polynesian String Figures and Rongorongo: Additional Remarks // Bulletin of the International String Figure Association. Vol. 5, pp. 63-76. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1999a. Polynesian String Figures and Rongorongo: More Parallels // Bulletin of the International String Figure Association. Vol. 6, pp. 56-61. Rjabchikov, S.V., 1999b. Fischer, Steven Roger, 1997. Glyphbreaker, New York, Copernicus // Journal de la SoМiцtц des OМцanistes. T. 108(1), p. 168-169. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2000a. An Easter Island String Figure and Rongorongo Records Demonstrate Trans-Pacific Contact // Bulletin of the International String Figure Association. Vol. 7, pp. 66-69. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2000b. La trompette du dieu Hiro // Journal de la SoМiцtц des OМцanistes. T. 110(1), p. 115-116. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2010. Polynesian String Figures and Rongorongo: New Interpretations // Polynesian Research. Vol. 1(2), pp. 16-20. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2012. The rongorongo Schools on Easter Island // Anthropos. Bd. 107(2), S. 564-570. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2014. The God Tinirau in the Polynesian Art // Anthropos. Bd. 109(1), S. 161-176. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2017a. The Ancient Astronomy of Easter Island: The Mamari Tablet Tells (the Last Part) // Polynesia Newsletter. No. 11, pp. 2-30. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2017b. The Ancient Astronomy of Easter Island: The Mamari Tablet Tells (Part 2) // arXiv:1702.08355: <https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1702/1702.08355.pdf>. Rjabchikov, S.V., 2018. The Rapanui Petroglyphs Tell of Turtles // Polynesia Newsletter. No. 12, pp. 3-17. 12