The 26 rongorongo texts with letter codes are inscribed on wooden objects, each with between 2 and 2320 simple glyphs and components of compound glyphs, for over 15,000 in all. The objects are mostly oblong wooden tablets, with the exceptions of
I, a possibly sacred chieftain's staff known as the
Santiago Staff;
J and
L, inscribed on
reimiro pectoral ornaments worn by the elite;
X, inscribed on various parts of a
tangata manu statuette; and
Y, a European
snuff box assembled from sections cut from a rongorongo tablet. The tablets, like the pectorals, statuettes, and staves, were works of art and valued possessions, and were apparently given individual proper names in the same manner as jade ornaments in New Zealand. Two of the tablets,
C and
S, have a documented pre-missionary provenance, though others may be as old or older. There are in addition a few isolated glyphs or short sequences which might prove to be rongorongo.
Classic texts Barthel referred to each of 24 texts he accepted as genuine with a letter of the alphabet; two texts have been added to the corpus since then. The two faces of the tablets are distinguished by suffixing
r (
recto) or
v (
verso) when the reading sequence can be ascertained, to which the line being discussed is appended. Thus
Pr2 is item
P (the Great Saint Petersburg Tablet), recto, second line. When the reading sequence cannot be ascertained,
a and
b are used for the faces. Thus
Ab1 is item
A (Tahua), side
b, first line. The six sides of the Snuff Box are lettered as sides
a to
f. Nearly all publications follow the Barthel convention, though a popular book by Fischer uses an idiosyncratic numbering system. Crude glyphs have been found on a few stone objects and some additional wooden items, but most of these are thought to be fakes created for the early tourism market. Several of the 26 wooden texts are suspect due to uncertain provenance (
X,
Y, and
Z), poor quality craftsmanship (
F,
K,
V,
W,
Y, and
Z), or to having been carved with a steel blade (
K,
V, and
Y),
Additional texts In addition to the petroglyphs mentioned above, there are a few other very short uncatalogued texts that may be rongorongo. Fischer reports that "many statuettes reveal or -like glyphs on their crown." He gives the example of a compound glyph, , on the crown of a statuette. Many human skulls are inscribed with the single 'fish' glyph
700 , which may stand for "war casualty; fish". There are other designs, including some tattoos recorded by early visitors, which are possibly single rongorongo glyphs, but since they are isolated and pictographic, it is difficult to know whether or not they are actually writing. In 2018, a possibly authentic ink-on-
barkcloth sequence dating from 1869, dubbed the "
Raŋitoki fragment", was recognized.
Glyphs The only published reference to the glyphs which is even close to comprehensive remains Barthel (1958). Barthel assigned a three-digit numeric code to each glyph or to each group of similar-looking glyphs that he believed to be
allographs (variants). In the case of allography, the bare numeric code was assigned to what Barthel believed to be the basic form (
Grundtypus), while variants were specified by alphabetic suffixes. Altogether he assigned 600 numeric codes. The hundreds place is a digit from 0 to 7, and categorizes the head, or overall form if there is no head: 0 and 1 for geometric shapes and inanimate objects; 2 for figures with "ears"; 3 and 4 for figures with open mouths (they are differentiated by their legs/tails); 5 for figures with miscellaneous heads; 6 for figures with beaks; and 7 for fish, arthropods, etc. The digits in tens and units places were allocated similarly, so that, for example, glyphs 206, 306, 406, 506, and 606 all have a downward-pointing wing or arm on the left, and a raised four-fingered hand on the right: There is some arbitrariness to which glyphs are grouped together, and there are inconsistencies in the assignments of numerical codes and the use of affixes which make the system rather complex.{{refn|{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080209110722/http://www.rongorongo.org/corpus/codes.html|archive-date=2008-02-09|url=http://www.rongorongo.org/corpus/codes.html Barthel (1971) claimed to have parsed the corpus of glyphs to 120, of which the other 480 in his inventory are allographs or
ligatures. The evidence was never published, but similar counts have been obtained by other scholars, such as
Pozdniakov & Pozdniakov (2007).
Published corpus archives) For almost a century only a few of the texts were published. In 1875, the director of the
Chilean National Museum of Natural History in
Santiago, Rudolf Philippi, published the Santiago Staff, and Carroll (1892) published part of the Oar. Most texts remained beyond the reach of would-be decipherers until 1958, when Thomas Barthel published line drawings of almost all the known corpus in his ("Bases for the Decipherment of the Easter Island script") which remains the fundamental reference to rongorongo. He transcribed texts
A through
X, over 99% of the corpus; the
CEIPP estimates that it is 97% accurate. Barthel's line drawings were not produced free-hand but copied from
rubbings, which helped ensure their faithfulness to the originals. Fischer (1997) published new line drawings. These include lines scored with obsidian but not finished with a shark tooth, which had not been recorded by Barthel because the rubbings he used often did not show them, for example on tablet
N. (However, in line
Gv4 shown in the section on
writing instruments above, the light lines were recorded by both Fischer and Barthel.) There are other omissions in Barthel which Fischer corrects, such as a sequence of glyphs at the transition from line
Ca6 to
Ca7 which is missing from Barthel, presumably because the carving went over the side of the tablet and was missed by Barthel's rubbing. (This missing sequence is right in the middle of Barthel's calendar.) However, other discrepancies between the two records are straightforward contradictions. For instance, the initial glyph of
I12 (line 12 of the Santiago Staff) in Fischer does not correspond with that of Barthel or Philippi, which agree with each other, and Barthel's rubbing (below) is incompatible with Fischer's drawing. Barthel's annotation,
Original doch 53.76! ("original indeed 53.76!"), suggests that he specifically verified Philippi's reading: as traced by Fischer, Barthel, and Philippi, plus Barthel's annotated pencil rubbing of the same line. In addition, the next glyph (glyph
20, a "spindle with three knobs") is missing its right-side "sprout" (glyph
10) in Philippi's drawing. This may be the result of an error in the inking, since there is a blank space in its place. The corpus is thus tainted with quite some uncertainty. It has never been properly checked for want of high-quality photographs. ==Decipherment==