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”.

中文翻译：

---

探索复活节岛的神秘石碑：rongorongo 研究中的真实性和可证伪性问题

摘要 对与复活节岛 (Rapa Nui) 的 rongorongo 传统相关的文物进行了分析，该传统由非专业传教士 Joseph-Eugène Eyraud 于 1864 年首次记录。我们在此将这块雕刻木板命名为“圣地亚哥石板”(SDT)，因为它的出处可追溯到旧圣地亚哥（加利福尼亚）庄园。物理损坏——包括因风化、腐蚀和侵蚀而消失的一侧——表明该文物已被存放在潮湿的地方，如洞穴，很长一段时间。众所周知，拉帕努伊通常在秘密洞穴中隐藏和保护财产，包括 rongorongo 碑。在各个方面——特别是在雕刻风格方面——“圣地亚哥平板电脑”可能最能与“伦敦平板电脑”相媲美。“圣地亚哥石板”上的整体铭文，显然是由一位可能对 rongorongo 有初步但真正训练或知识的抄写员雕刻的，与已知的 rongorongo 语料库中发现的任何铭文都不相同或非常相似。然而，“圣地亚哥石碑”铭文确实包括在已知语料库中发现的各种字形配置和组合，证明它是真正的 rongorongo 传统的一部分。我们还考虑了 1870 年代首次提到的平板电脑的报道，即所谓的“Calligan 平板电脑”——它的状态直到现在都被宣布为“丢失”。“圣地亚哥平板电脑”能否成为“Calligan平板电脑”？此设置用作从“圣地亚哥平板电脑”获得的数据和有关难以捉摸的“Calligan平板电脑”的报告的比较基础。演绎的总和使我们面临不可避免的问题。我们是否应该假设创建“圣地亚哥平板电脑”的所谓的拉帕努伊抄写员的意图是为了传达某些东西（真实的文本和信息）？或者我们是否应该将这件最近发现的文物视为随机制作的标志的集合，其目的可能是旧抄写传统的复兴，或者是为了贸易和个人利益而创造的物品？这些问题不仅适用于“圣地亚哥石板”，还适用于其他各种已知的 rongorongo 石板和多年来真实性受到质疑的碎片，例如“Chauvet Fragment”、“Paris Snuffbox”，甚至“伦敦平板电脑”。与其他关于真伪 rongorongo 铭文、破译和解释选择的案例一样，