
Rongorongo - based2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rongorongo
======
bluedevil2k
I love that this language, with no translation and no meaning or sounds for
each character, is getting Unicode fields.

~~~
mkl
Another language, Linear A, from the Minoan civilisation (centred on Crete),
is also undeciphered and has Unicode codepoints:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A)

~~~
jaratec
Nitpicking here: Linear A is a language script, we don't know whether
rongorongo is a script or just decoration. Also, the character set of Linear A
is pretty much the same as the one for Linear B (which most likely adopted
them), which is ancient greek.

------
huxflux
Larger image (than Wikipedia)
[https://imgur.com/a/Li0zdP4](https://imgur.com/a/Li0zdP4)

~~~
mysterydip
Interesting how much repetition with slight modding there is. I see a lot of
birds, bugs, plants, and maybe people (with eyes)? Really fascinating.

------
wgx
>>For example, the Atlas of Languages states, "It was probably used as a
memory aid or for decorative purposes, not for recording the Rapanui language
of the islanders." If this is the case, then there is little hope of ever
deciphering it.

------
JohnJamesRambo
An ornate and fascinating, possible independent invention of writing,
represented by a 649x270 130kb jpg image on Wikipedia.

~~~
puzzlingcaptcha
It's actually a sharpened version of the original image, which is 35kb.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rongorongo_B-v_Aruku-
Kure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rongorongo_B-v_Aruku-
Kurenga_\(color\).jpg)

------
Waterluvian
I'm always so skeptical that historians and archaeologists and such have any
idea what they're talking about or if it's all just a self-reinforcing web of
made up stuff founded through the human talent to find patterns where they
aren't actually present.

If I wanted to challenge the claims made on that wiki page with a lot of "how
did you come to that conclusion?" and drill all the way down, is it possible?
Is it all founded on solid ground in referenced materials? Does it ever get
challenged deeply by those whose academic careers don't depend on buying in to
it all?

Maybe I'm being way too paranoid.

~~~
AlotOfReading
Wikipedia isn't the forum for any of that. Journals, books, and other
literature are the place for discussions about ontology and methodology.

My experience with archaeology is that it's more self critical than you
probably expect.

