{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03206562266964952, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002982848620432513, 'mean_word_length': 5.070135746606335, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exploring a mysterious tablet from Easter Island: the issues of authenticity and falsifiability in rongorongo studies

Abstract An analysis is conducted on an artifact that relates to the rongorongo tradition on Easter Island (Rapa Nui), a tradition first recorded in 1864 by the lay missionary Joseph-Eugène Eyraud. We here designate this engraved wooden tablet the “San Diego Tablet” (SDT), due to the old San Diego (California) estate where its provenance is traced. Physical damage – including one side that is obliterated by weathering, corrosion, and erosion – is suggestive of the artifact having been stored in a damp place, such as a cave, for a significant period of time. It is known that Rapanui commonly hid and safeguarded possessions, including rongorongo tablets, in secret caves. In various respects – particularly in terms of carving style – the “San Diego Tablet” is perhaps most comparable to the “London Tablet”. The overall inscription on the “San Diego Tablet”, evidently engraved by a scribe who possessed a perhaps rudimentary but genuine training in or knowledge of rongorongo, is not identical or closely parallel to any inscription found in the known rongorongo corpus. However, the “San Diego Tablet” inscription does include various glyph configurations and combinations found in the known corpus, evidence that it is a part of the genuine rongorongo tradition. We also take into account the reports of a tablet first mentioned in the 1870 s, the so-called “Calligan Tablet” – its status declared until now as “lost”. Could the “San Diego Tablet” be the “Calligan Tablet”? This setting is used as a comparative basis for the data obtained from the “San Diego Tablet” and the reports about the elusive “Calligan Tablet”. The sum of deductions leads us to confront unavoidable questions. Are we to assume an intention on the part of the supposed Rapanui scribe who created the “San Diego Tablet” to communicate something (a genuine text and message)? Or should we consider this recently located artifact as a collection of randomly made signs, where perhaps the intention was either the revival of the old scribal tradition or to create an object for trade and personal profit? These questions apply not only to the “San Diego Tablet”, but also to various other known rongorongo tablets and fragments whose authenticity has been questioned over the years, such as the “Chauvet Fragment”, the “Paris Snuffbox”, and even the “London Tablet”. As in other cases regarding genuine versus false rongorongo inscriptions, decipherments, and interpretative choices, the issues of authenticity and falsifiability are crucial to the study of the “San Diego Tablet”.