--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Marco Cimarosti <marco.cimarosti@...>
wrote:

> BTW, how reliable and accurate is this web site?

It depends. The list of signs and the ... how could I say...
the hieroglyphic texts are straight scans of Barthel's
Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift, so that,
as I have written earlier, it is only 90% to 93% accurate,
which is pretty crummy. The rest is reproductions of old
articles, Pinart, Eyraud, Thomson, etc. The bit about Fischer's
character assassination of Englert is mine (the URL is
http://www.rongorongo.org/theories/englert.html), adapted
from my review of Fischer's book published in Anthropos.
I did write to Andrew Pawley of A.N.U. about that (he is
listed on the editorial board of that OUP series) and he
swore that he had never seen the manuscript.

> Also, how complete is it? Do you have an estimate of the percent of

the

> existing Rongorongo corpus that it covers?

All the known corpus. Well, rather, all the corpus generally
thought to be genuine. Personally, I think that the
Chauvet fragment is a late forgery. And also the Snuff Box.
There is one tablet, which I have seen mentioned nowhere,
even in Fischer's long list of... what does he call them?
"Fakes" is the English word, but he favours turgid English.
It's in Francis Mazières's "Fantastique Ile de Pâques". In
the edition I have (Bibliothèque des Grandes Enigmes, Robert
Laffont, 1969) it's on pp.240-41, the bottom tablet (the top
one is clearly a gross fake). It looks genuine, until you
look closely. The craftsmanship is not good enough. Yet
I have this nagging suspicion that it might just be a very
late copy of a tablet now lost. Either that, or it is a
very good fake. It is interesting because it has the glyph
for the full moon, which occurs only once in the whole corpus.
(On Tablet Mamari, or C).