Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xxxv:4 (Spring, 2005), 571–589.

TOWARD DECIPHERING THE KHIPU

Galen Brokaw
Toward Deciphering the Khipu
Signs of the Inka Khipu: Binary Coding in the Andean Knotted-String
Records. By Gary Urton (Austin, University of Texas Press, 2003)
202 pp. $45.00 cloth $19.95 paper

Traditionally, writing has served as a benchmark of civilization

that divided human societies into two groups, those with and
those without history. Furthermore, according to most scholars,
the development of extended, complex sociopolitical organiza-
tions is not possible without writing. In the sixteenth century, in-
digenous American states, such as the Aztec and Inca empires,
have always presented certain problems in this regard. Although
these sociopolitical organizations were highly complex, they did
not possess writing as normally deªned. The Aztecs used a form of
pictography, but the Incas did not have a medium that corre-
sponded so easily with writing. This problem may be solved in
one of two ways: (1) by modifying the theory about the necessity
of writing for the development of complex political systems; or
(2) by claiming that the Andeans had their own form of writing.
The second solution normally, although not always, includes a
redeªnition of writing. Both solutions must take into account the
system of knotted, colored strings known as the khipu (also spelled
quipu), and both, in their various articulations, require their own
deªnitions of the nature of the medium—that is to say, the nature
of khipu semiosis.
Most scholars have opted for the ªrst solution, maintaining
that the necessary condition for the development of complex po-
litical systems may be ªlled by something other than writing. The
implication is that although writing per se may not be indispens-
able, other material media may fulªll the same function to one

Galen Brokaw is Assistant Professor of Latin American Literature, University of Buffalo. He is

the author of “The Poetics of Khipu Historiography,” Latin American Research Review,
XXXVIII (2003), 111–147; “Khipu Numeracy and Alphabetic Literacy in the Andes: Felipe
Guaman Poma de Ayala’s Neuva corónica y buen gobierno,” Colonial Latin American Review, XI
(2002), 275–303.
© 2005 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, Inc.
572 | GAL E N B RO K AW

degree or another. Following this line of reasoning, the khipu, al-

though not writing, made possible the development of the Inca
Empire. In most cases, this type of argument identiªes the khipu as
a mnemonic and/or a statistical device that recorded such quanti-
tative and administrative data as census and tribute records, store-
house contents, and so forth. Few of those who employ this
argument have actually studied the khipu directly, whether via ar-
chaeological specimens or serious theoretical reºection.
Prior to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
most academic writings that made reference to the khipu relied
exclusively on colonial chronicles, the problems with which are
well known to anyone who has studied and compared these
sources. Most twentieth-century references to the khipu as a
mnemonic device rely upon the authority of Leland Locke’s
inºuential book, The Ancient Quipu (New York, 1923). Following
the methodology recommended by Uhle, Locke examined forty-
two archaeological khipu, concluding that this medium was
merely a numerical device in which the knotted strings employed
a decimal place system. For many years, scholars considered
Locke’s work to be the deªnitive statement about khipu semiosis;
many still do today.1
The second solution (that the Incas had a form of writing)
may either accept Locke’s argument and look for another medium
to identify as writing or reconcile Locke’s ªndings with a more
nuanced and/or complete treatment of khipu semiosis. Some evi-
dence in the chronicles indicates that the Incas employed a form of
pictographic writing, but even if true, the fact that no samples of it
have survived suggests that it did not play a major role in the ad-
ministration of the Empire. There have also been several mis-
guided attempts to locate writing in the tocapu, series of geometric
ªgures woven into tunics and painted on pottery.2 The most
promising work in this area, however, has focused on further anal-
ysis of the khipu. Beginning in the 1960s, Marcia and Robert
Ascher have argued convincingly that the numerical nature of the
khipu did not limit its semiotic capacity.3 Urton’s Signs of the Inka
1 Max Uhle, “A Modern Quipu from Cutusuma, Bolivia,” Bulletin of the Free Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania, I (1897), 51–63.
2 Victoria de la Jara, “La solución del problema de la escritura peruana,” Arqueología y
sociedad, I (1970), 27–35; William Glyn Burns, Legado de los amautas (Lima, 1990); idem,
Decodiªcación de quipus (Lima, 2002).
3 Marcia Ascher, “The Logical-Numerical System of the Inca Quipus,” Annals of the History
of Computing, V (1983), 268–278; idem, “Mathematical Ideas of the Incas,” in Michael P. Closs
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 573
Khipu contributes to this line of research in an attempt to further
elucidate the nature of khipu as a system of representation.
The khipu is commonly thought to be a mnemonic device
rather than a form of writing, but, as Urton observes, mnemonics
has largely evaded theorization. After classifying ªve different
types of mnemonic techniques or technologies, Urton reviews the
mnemonics argument in khipu studies and the evidence in colo-
nial sources upon which it is based. He states that the ªrst descrip-
tion of the khipu implicating a mnemonic function 130 years after
the Spanish conquest does not necessarily reºect the true nature of
this device in pre-Hispanic and early colonial times. Urton recog-
nizes that whether to identify the khipu as writing is ultimately a
semantic problem. Accordingly, he revises a deªnition of writing
given by Boone—“the communication of speciªc ideas in a
highly conventionalized, standardized manner by means of perma-
nent, visible signs” (28).4 Urton makes no deªnitive statement
about whether the khipu is a form of writing, but he is inclined to
believe that it is.
Although Urton recognizes the importance of the Aschers’
work, he believes that their approach has stalled in its potential to
provide a basis for decipherment. Whereas the Aschers build upon
Locke’s work to develop a more nuanced approach to numerical
information and to incorporate additional features, such as the
structural conªguration of strings, Urton proposes a radically new
direction in khipu research. Although Urton recognizes the valid-
ity of numerical readings of khipu, he argues that these devices
also employ a seven-bit binary code. He identiªes seven features
of the khipu that are inherently binary, either by material necessity
or cultural convention: (1) the material from which the khipu is
made, either cotton or wool; (2) the color of the string, as belong-

(ed.), Native American Mathematics (Austin, 1986), 261–289; idem, “Reading Khipu: Labels,
Structure, Format,” in Jeffrey Quilter and Urton (eds.), Narrative Threads: Accounting and Re-
counting in Andean Khipu (Austin, 2002), 87–102; Robert Ascher, “Inka Writing,” in ibid.,
103–115; Marcia Ascher and Robert Ascher, “Code of Ancient Peruvian Knotted Cords
(Quipus),” Nature, CCXXII (1969), 529–533; idem, “Numbers and Relations from Ancient
Quipus,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, VIII (1971), 288–320; idem, “The Quipu as Visi-
ble Language,” Visible Language, IX (1975), 329–256; idem, Code of the Quipu: Databook (Ann
Arbor, 1978); idem, Code of the Quipu: A Study in Media, Mathematics, and Culture (Ann Arbor,
1981).
4 Elizabeth Hill Boone, “Introduction: Writing and Recording Knowledge,” in idem and
Walter Mignolo (eds.), Writing Without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes
(Durham, 1994), 15–17.
574 | GAL E N B RO K AW

ing to one of two culturally determined color classes; (3) the spin
and ply of the strings, either S-spun/Z-plied or Z-spun/S-plied;
(4) the direction of attachment of pendant and subsidiary cords,
recto or verso; (5) knot direction, S or Z; (6) the odd or even nu-
merical value of each knot as determined by the decimal place sys-
tem; and (7) the system employed, decimal or nondecimal. Urton
views these seven features functioning like individual bits in a
computer-style seven-bit system in which the knot is the basic sig-
nifying unit. A seven-bit binary system allows for the possibility of
27, or 128, distinct arrays. This fairly limited number of signifying
units would seem to indicate that the only possible referents for
these arrays are either alphabetic or syllabic. Logographic systems,
in contrast, typically contain more than 1,000 distinct signs (117).
Urton argues that the variety of color possibilities—at least
twenty-four—expands the capacity of the khipu from 128 to 1,536
distinct arrays.
Urton’s theory of binary coding must ªnd validation in three
different areas: (1) the material and semiotic nature of individual
binary features; (2) the larger binary system and how individual bi-
nary features function within it; and (3) ethnographic corrobora-
tion of the signiªcance of individual binary features, as well as of
the larger binary system. Urton is under no illusions about the
conjectural nature of his theory, especially with regard to the
number and nature of the binary elements. Even before this book
was published, he was receptive to ethnographic evidence that
might suggest revisions to some of the details of his theory, and he
continues to invite critical scrutiny.5
Several of the material features identiªed and described by
Urton have never before ªgured in analyses of khipu. Calancha,
the only chronicler from the colonial period who attempted a
close analysis of the khipu, does not mention spin/ply directions,
knot directionality, or attachment direction.6 One, albeit late,
source from the nineteenth century makes reference to spin/ply
direction and possibly knot directionality.7 Radicati included ply
5 Urton, “Codiªcación binaria en los khipus incaicos,” Revista andina, XXXV (2002), 9–38;
Frank Salomon, “Comentarios [sobre la teoría de codiªcación binaria],” Revista andina,
XXXV (2002), 56–61; Urton, “Respuesta,” Revista andina, XXXV (2002), 62–67.
6 Antonio de la Calancha, Crónica moralizada del orden de San Agustín den el Perú (Barcelona,
1638), 90–93.
7 Mariano Rivero y Ustariz and Johann Jakob von Tschudi (trans. Francis L. Hawks), Peru-
vian Antiquities (New York, 1853; orig. pub. 1851, in Spanish), 109–112.
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 575
direction in his descriptions of khipu, and Conklin has recently
discussed some of these material characteristics.8 But Urton is the
ªrst to document and study them in detail across a large corpus of
khipu specimens. The possible signiªcance of binary features,
however, is not tied to the viability of the theory of binary coding.
That is, such materially binary features as spin and ply directions
may have been conventions independent of any computer-style
binary code.
Although Urton brieºy introduces his general theory about
the larger binary system, his exposition begins with a focus on the
individual, material features that comprise its essential compo-
nents. This presentation is consistent with Urton’s primary meth-
odology, based on a long period of detailed examination of
archaeological khipu. Such an approach, however, runs the risk of
developing sensibilities to certain attributes that may not have
been signiªcant in khipu semiosis; hence, the importance of
ethnographic corroboration. Urton’s discussion of individual bi-
nary features begins with the operations or decisions in khipu con-
struction about which he is most conªdent and proceeds to those
about which he is less certain (59). But the degree of certainty
would seem to depend on whether the operation or decision was
inherently binary rather than on the conventionality of the fea-
ture, the validity of the larger binary system proposed, or even the
existence of ethnographic corroboration. Although an ethno-
graphic understanding of Andean culture clearly informs Urton’s
discussion, little ethnographic evidence supports the speciªc argu-
ment about the conventionality of these binary features or the
larger argument about a computer-style binary code. In his discus-
sion of color, for example, Urton demonstrates ethnographically
that modern Andean cultures divide textile colors into two cate-
gories, but no evidence suggests that these color categories as such
were used in a conventional way in khipu semiosis.
As mentioned above, passages from colonial chronicles or
later European travelers lend support to the conventionality of
some of these binary elements. In one or two cases, Urton presents

8 Carlos Radicati di Primeglio, “Introducción al estudio de los quipus,” Documenta: Revista

de la Sociedad Peruana de Historia, 2 (1949–1950), 244–339; William Conklin, “The Informa-
tion System of Middle Horizon Quipus,” in Anthony F. Aveni and Urton (eds.),
Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the American Tropics (New York, 1982), 261–281; idem,
“A Khipu Information String Theory,” in Quilter and Urton (eds.), Narrative Threads, 56–86.
576 | GAL E N B RO K AW

compelling structural evidence from archaeological khipu that

seem to support their conventionality. But in most cases, the only
supporting evidence is the correlation that Urton posits between
principles of Andean dualism and the inherently binary nature of
many khipu construction features. Urton seems to imply that the
very existence of features that can be conceived as binary in nature
lends credence to both the argument that they were conventional
and the postulation of a larger binary theory. Yet the semiotic
signiªcance of one or more of these binary elements does not, in
and of itself, constitute proof of a larger, computer-style binary
code. Urton’s analysis clearly demonstrates that any attempt to un-
derstand the khipu must at least take into account the possibility
that all these binary elements may have had conventional func-
tions in khipu semiosis. However, rather than constituting a sepa-
rate code or system, one or more materially binary conventions
are more likely to have functioned in conjunction with the deci-
mal code itself. A discussion of every individual binary feature
comprising the elements of the theory of binary coding is beyond
the scope of this essay, but two general problems relevant to the
entire theory emerge in Urton’s discussion of color and in his dis-
tinction between decimal and binary readings.
In the case of color, Urton presents ethnographic evidence
that clearly demonstrates the contemporary organization of colors
into two categories as well as several sub-categories. This organi-
zational scheme allows for the use of color as a binary element.9
But as Urton explicitly states, he must also refute claims by such
chroniclers as Garcilaso and Calancha that the khipu employed a
one-to-one color symbolism in which, for example, yellow repre-
sented gold, black signaled time, and so forth. Urton argues that
the direct correspondence as described by Garcilaso and Calancha
is not consistent with the tendency in Andean cultures to organize
and classify everything into dual or binary categories, in conjunc-
tion with triadic, quadripartite, quinary, and decimal groupings
(108). He raises this point in his discussion of color because of sev-
eral references in colonial chronicles to the use of colors on khipu
in a one-to-one relationship to a referent.
9 Urton does not explicitly explain how color works both as a binary element determined
by two general color categories and as a nonbinary element in which at least twenty-four dif-
ferent colors may enter this part of the code. This lapse is one of the major problems in
Urton’s description of this binary feature.
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 577
Urton’s rejection of this idea would seem to apply to all of the
binary features. In other words, the entire array of seven binary
values constitutes the unit of signiªcation converging on the knot,
rather than any individual feature. Given the Andean tendency for
complexity, Urton doubts that the Inca would have devised so
simple a system:
That is, if we ªnd that in virtually every other domain of life and
culture that the Inka manner of classiªcation and organization was
to establish dual or binary—and in certain contexts triadic, quadri-
partite, quinary, and decimal—categories and relations between
elements, why would they have suddenly abandoned these power-
ful and persistent classiªcatory, organizational, and semantic strate-
gies when they set about ordering relations between, and assigning
meaning to, color? I do not think they would have done that, nor
do I believe they did so. (108)

The problem with this argument is that it conºates the refer-

ential and poetic (or structural) functions of representation.10 In
the ªrst sentence quoted above, “the Inka manner of classiªcation
and organization” alludes to dual and quadripartite structures of
social organization that characterize social groups known as ayllu
and their constituent moieties, Quechua “numeracy,” concepts
of pairing and evenness (such as ch’ullantin), relationships of reci-
procity, and so forth. All of these concepts or social practices are
integral parts of what might be called “cultural poetics” or the
structure of cultural interaction, but none of them constitutes an
operation of reference per se. In other words, the classiªcation and
organization to which Urton refers are structures within which
reference takes place rather than operations of reference them-
selves. When Urton later in the sentence refers again to the
“classiªcatory” and “organizational” functions, he includes “se-
mantic” as if it belonged to the same category. Organization and
classiªcation are poetic/structural operations that determine rela-
tions of referents used in communication and social interaction;
semantics refers to the operation of reference itself. This subtle in-
corporation of semantics essentially implies a homology between
the structures of the poetic and referential functions.
10 The point derives from the theory of linguistic functions elaborated by Roman
Jakobson, “Linguistics and Poetics,” in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1960), 350–377.
578 | GAL E N B RO K AW

The crux of Urton’s argument is that the complex relational

and organizational structure providing the framework within
which extended sociolinguistic interaction takes place also charac-
terizes the structural relationship between a signiªer and its refer-
ent. But these structures are inherently incommensurable. The
organization and classiªcation that fall within the poetic function
depend upon a logically—although not necessarily ontologi-
cally—prior reference. A one-to-one correspondence between
signiªer and referent is a characteristic common to all cultures.
Andean cultures certainly could have devised a binary system such
as the one that Urton describes. But a one-to-one relationship be-
tween a signiªer, such as a speciªc color or binary value, and a sin-
gle referent is not particularly Western; nor is it particularly non-
Andean, as Urton claims. The fact that Andean cultures organize
the world into binary structures does not mean that a homologous
structure characterized the operation of reference itself. In any
case, individual binary values, including color, sometimes seem to
function as signiªers in a one-to-one relationship with a referent
even in Urton’s explication.
The second major problem arises in Urton’s distinction
between a decimal and a binary reading of a khipu. To a certain
degree, at least on decimal khipu, the binary code depends upon
the decimal system, which would seem to function independently
of the binary code. The knots on decimal khipu unquestionably
represent numerical quantities determined by the rules of the deci-
mal place system. Urton does not contest this well-established fact,
and he seems implicitly to recognize the problem that it poses.
First, if the khipu employed a system of binary coding, why is the
decimal system necessary at all? Second, the fact that all of the
knots on a given string of a decimal khipu are clearly designed to
be read as a single numerical value corresponding to a group of
objects or phenomena in the world would seem to undermine the
theory of binary coding.
Urton attempts to solve these problems by arguing that any
given decimal khipu supported two readings, one numeric and
one binary. It is difªcult to imagine how these two functionally
different yet materially isomorphic, overlapping semiotic systems
could operate simultaneously on the same khipu. The incontro-
vertible existence of the decimal system would suggest that quan-
titative values necessarily corresponded to quantities of speciªc
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 579
objects or phenomena in the world, in what Urton identiªes as
a statistical reading of the decimal khipu. In such a case, the refer-
ents would determine the number of knots on a string and their
individual value as part of the decimal place system. Moreover,
other features of the khipu, such as cord conªguration and color
patterns, appear to carry some signiªcance complementing the
quantitative information of the decimal system, placing further
constraints on the use of these elements in a binary code. Given
the apparently almost complete heterogeneity between the refer-
ential operations of the decimal and binary systems, the conven-
tions of the decimal system would inevitably interfere with the
particular semantic, orthographic, morphological, and/or syntactic
rules, whatever these might be, for the formation of signiªcant
binary arrays and array sequences in the binary code.
In the “statistical” code, the odd or even value of each knot,
and the sequence of knots on a string, would be determined by
rules of the decimal place system for representing quantities rather
than by the “grammar” of the binary code. Urton’s argument that
any given khipu could be read both according to the code of the
decimal place system and as a series of binary arrays would require
that the incidental determination of the value of the binary ele-
ments by the decimal place system (elements that either have a dif-
ferent function or no particular signiªcance in the decimal system
itself ) correspond exactly to the value of these elements as deter-
mined by the referent of the binary code and the “grammatical”
rules required for its representation. The problem is that any given
knot on a decimal khipu could always be decoded using the binary
system, but the next knot would necessarily be determined by the
numerical quantity and status of the statistical information and the
conventions of the statistical code rather than the syntactic rules
that would have to govern the sequence of knots in the binary sys-
tem. There is no obvious way of reconciling these two apparently
incommensurable systems.
Urton presents his theory of binary coding as an alternate
approach, motivated by the view that the attempt to decipher the
khipu during the last seventy-ªve years has stalled. Urton envi-
sions two options: either (1) to continue endlessly to “massage”
numbers and analyze colors, or (2) to explore the possibility that
these other construction features were signiªcant elements in the
khipu system. To do so, he argues, requires a theory of signs, for
580 | GAL E N B RO K AW

which he turns to the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce’s

semiotics involves three trichotomies of signs, the ªrst of which
includes the sign as object or event (sinsign), the sign as quality
(qualisign), and the sign as law (legisign). Urton suggests that the
sinsign is anything that has the potential to signify, citing an exam-
ple offered by Savan in which all the various aspects of a moon
rock are recorded as possible clues to the past (142).11 Urton then
identiªes the various features of khipu construction that he has
analyzed as sinsigns.
Urton seems to employ the notion of the sinsign not in terms
of its deªnition but in terms of the perhaps unintended, and mis-
leading, implication of Savan’s example. Any given sinsign must,
by its very nature be a sign through the embodiment of certain
qualities, but the deªnition of sinsign itself does not contain any
hint of a methodology for its interpretation. It is an ontological
categorization rather than a methodological deªnition. Any given
characteristic of any given object is potentially a sinsign, but in or-
der for it to be one, it must function in a system of signiªcation.
The properties of a moon rock may certainly function as sinsigns
in geological analyses, but geological semiotics differs greatly from
the semiotics of man-made sign systems like the khipu. Geological
signs are constituted by laws of cause and effect, molecular trans-
formations, and so forth. Artiªcial sign systems, such as the khipu,
operate according to conventional rules (semantic, morphological,
and syntactic). Hence, Urton’s deªnition of sinsign does not
contribute any insights about the khipu system; it serves merely
to lend spurious support to the argument that the binary features
of the khipu are signiªcant merely because they exist and are
inherently binary.
Urton seems to imply that the mere existence of these fea-
tures, much like the mere existence of the properties of a moon
rock, constitutes evidence of semiotic signiªcance, which is not
what the concept of the sinsign was designed to suggest. Urton is
correct in calling attention to these features; they certainly could
be signiªcant. But it is a non sequitur to say that they are
instrinsically signiªcant. Furthermore, even the assumption that all
11 David Savan, An Introduction to Peirce’s Full System of Semiotics (Toronto, 1988), cited in
Jorgen Dines Johansen, Dialogic Semiosis: An Essay on Signs and Meanings (Bloomington, 1993),
68–69.
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 581
of these properties are signiªcant does not entail that they function
in the way that Urton suggests.
Urton also maintains that markedness theory and the concept
of parallelism arising from structural linguistics provide the keys to
understanding how the binary code of the khipu functioned: “The
notion of markedness focuses on the relations between linked pairs
or dyadic sets of phonological or grammatical elements, or word
meanings that are in a relationship of asymmetrical (hierarchical)
binary opposition to each other. One of the items (the marked
member of the set) will be more narrowly speciªed with respect to
some feature than the other (the unmarked member), the latter of
which is the more general term” (144). The relation between the
marked and unmarked elements takes two forms: (1) A/non-A, a
relation of speciªed absence such as voiced/non-voiced or color-
ful/non-colorful; and (2) A/B, a relationship of polar opposition
such as vowel/consonant, day/night, and so forth (144). To
Urton, these types of binary relationships correspond to two dif-
ferent types of binary features on khipu. The binary elements re-
lated to the physical manipulation of strings (spin/ply direction,
attachment direction, and knot direction) were mutually exclu-
sive, whereas the relationships between color categories and deci-
mal versus nondecimal number systems is one of symbolic
opposition, not based on binary negation, and thus capable of use
on the same string or, in the case of color, the same knot. A khipu
cord, for example, may be constructed by plying together two
colors from different categories. As for knots, a cord may combine
decimal and nondecimal systems on a single string. A cord
may have a single knot in the tens position and a long knot of
eleven in the ones position for an apparent value of twenty-one,
for example.
Two problems with this explanation arise. First, if these fea-
tures are used in the binary code, they would have to be at least
mutually exclusive conventionally. Strings plied using two colors
from different color categories, for example, would seem to con-
found the value of the bit coded for color. In the case of knots,
even with a high degree of isomorphism, decimal and nondecimal
knots would have to be mutually exclusive in function.
There also seems to be a contradiction between Urton’s con-
ception of the nondecimal system in this instance and his prior
582 | GAL E N B RO K AW

treatment of it. Originally, he argued that nondecimal khipu em-

ployed a system in which all of the knots on a single string would
constitute the signifying unit as opposed to the individual knot,
but now he seems to imply that any given knot on a string might
be decimal or nondecimal. This position would solve some of the
problems in his earlier discussion, but it creates its own method-
ological and interpretive difªculties. If decimal and nondecimal
knots appeared on the same string, the only way to tell the differ-
ence would be in the case of long knots with more than nine
turns, long knots and ªgure-eight knots in positions other than the
ones position, and simple knots in the ones position. But ascer-
taining the decimal or nondecimal nature of any simple knot ap-
pearing in the tens position or higher would be impossible. Such a
determination could have been made by the khipukamayuq (knot
makers/keepers) based on syntactical context, but not from the
material form itself. Thus, “epigraphic” analysis would be unable
to identify nondecimal simple knots appearing in positions that
coincide with their use in the decimal system.
Urton does not address these problems. In his semantic the-
ory, each binary feature of the khipu corresponds to a parallel, hi-
erarchically related (marked/unmarked) pair, with the dominant
value indicating the unmarked element (152–153). Similar to
markedness, parallelism can also be related formally to a binary sys-
tem. Urton cites anthropological and linguistic studies that dem-
onstrate the prevalence of parallel structures in the poetry of oral
cultures. He compares an Indonesian tradition that requires mas-
tery of between 1,000 and 1,500 pairs of linked terms to the 1,536
possible sequences of the khipu code. Mannheim has also
identiªed the use of semantic couplets in traditional Andean
Quechua songs.12 Urton argues that a corpus of such couplets, a
system of canonical parallelisms, was embedded in the khipu (156).
Examples of such pairs might have been: hanan/hurin, Inca/non-
Inca, male/female, senior/junior, my group/not my group,
domesticated/wild, past/present, addition/substraction, multipli-
cation/division, collection/redistribution, and so forth (159).
Urton’s use of markedness theory and parallelism at the end of
the book to explain the nature of khipu semiosis dispels a confu-
12 Bruce Mannheim, “‘Time, Not the Syllables, Must Be Counted:’ Quechua Parallelism,
Word Meaning, and Cultural Analysis,” Michigan Discussions in Anthropology, XIII (1998), 245–
287.
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 583
sion that arises at the very outset, but it also conºicts with his pre-
vious explanation. Urton originally argued that the basic unit of
signiªcation is the knot and that a seven-bit binary array consti-
tuted the operation of reference. His denial of a one-to-one refer-
ential operation between a signiªer and a signiªed is consistent
with such a system. At several points in the description of individ-
ual features and in the discussion of markedness theory and paral-
lelism, however, Urton claims that each individual binary value
would have corresponded to a term or concept in a parallel rela-
tion to the other value of that feature (66, 72, 116, 152, 156–160).
In contrast to his earlier explanation, this one seems to constitute a
one-to-one relationship at the level of each individual binary
value rather than the entire binary sequence.
Part of the confusion—either this reviewer’s or Urton’s—
stems from the analogy between the binary system used in modern
computers and the binary code that Urton proposes for the khipu.
The validity of this analogy stands or falls on the formal and func-
tional similarity between computer binary code and the code of
the khipu. But the confusion noted above about exactly how the
khipu binary code functions is also characteristic of the discussion
of computer binary code. In Urton’s words,

It is also relevant to point out in regard to the relative arbitrariness

of eight-bit sequences as the foundation of modern computing
technology that early computers relied on decimal- rather than bi-
nary-coded information (Eck 1995:6). One point to stress is that to
propose a theory of binary coding in the Inka khipu is not to “jump
on the bandwagon” of today’s preoccupation with computers and
computing; rather, it is to insist that whereas computers came to
adopt binary coding through a process of trial and error, khipu
were, for the most part, binary coding devices by nature. (39)

These statements are, at best, misleading and, at worst, com-

pletely false. The contrast that Urton sets up between the binary
system and a decimal system used in early computing implies that
the decimal system to which Eck refers was a code using sequences
of decimal rather than binary bits, which presumably means a se-
quence of bits each of which could have one of ten different val-
ues. But the decimal system to which Urton refers, citing Eck, was
not a code in the same sense at all, and it was not related to elec-
584 | GAL E N B RO K AW

tronic computing in any way. Eck’s discussion deals with early

mechanical calculating machines that used the digits 0 to 9 to pro-
duce numbers for calculation.13 They employed a decimal system
but only to produce numbers; it was not a code involved in the
production or storage of other types of information.
Furthermore, Urton seems to confuse the arbitrariness of the
conventional number of binary bits in a binary code with the prin-
ciple of sequential binary coding itself. The idea that the principle
of binary sequences is arbitrary does not follow from the fact that
the number of bits in a sequence is arbitrary. The principle of bi-
nary sequences determines, and is determined by, the material
technology. That the number of bits in a binary system is arbitrary
has nothing to do with the principle of using sequences of binary
elements. The claim that use of a binary system in modern com-
puters was an arbitrary development from trial and error, whereas
the khipu is inherently binary, is misleading. The material, elec-
tronic processes that constitute computing consist of operations in
which electric currents are run through a series of switches that are
either open or closed; from a material perspective, computers are
even more inherently binary than khipu. The main point is that
the arbitrariness of the number of bits in a binary code does not
mean that the principle of binary sequences itself is arbitrary.
At times, Urton argues for a strong analogical relationship be-
tween ascii binary code and the khipu. In computer binary code,
no individual bit in the sequence carries any signiªcance by itself.
Reference is achieved only through the value of each bit in com-
bination with the other bits in the entire sequence. Urton rein-
forces this point by comparing the khipu to a system used by
Chinese telegraph operators who assign an arbitrarily determined
four digit number to the syllables of the Chinese language (40).
The similarity that justiªes this analogy cannot be the principle of
binary coding, because the Chinese telegraph system is not binary;
hence, Urton’s caveat that it is roughly analogous. The only other
feature that would justify the comparison is the insigniªcance of
the individual digits on their own, which is also consistent with
Urton’s argument that an individual feature such as color would
not have operated in a one-to-one symbolism with a referent.
However, the operation of reference inherently involves a one-to-
13 David Eck, The Most Complex Machine: A Survey of Computers and Computing (Wellesley,
Mass., 1995), 6.
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 585
one correspondence between a signiªer and a referent. The issue
at hand is the relative simplicity or complexity of the signiªer.
One-to-one color symbolism would constitute a simple signiªer,
while a uniªed interdependent sequence of binary bit values
would constitute a complex signiªer. In the analogy between the
khipu and computer binary code and the rejection of a one-to-
one symbolism, Urton seems to argue for a complex signiªer.
In spite of this strong analogy, Urton does not address what
seems to be a fundamental difference between computer binary
code and the khipu binary code. He repeatedly states that individ-
ual binary features were signiªcant in some way (66, 72, 116, 152).
He presents ethnographic evidence suggesting that the direction of
spin and ply may have signaled the status of the khipukamayuq or
qualiªed the information on strings characterized by the opposite
spin/ply directionality (66–67). He argues that a recto or verso
cord attachment would have indicated that the referent belonged
to one or another type: “Binary decisions were being made with
respect to the nature, or classiªcation, of the information being
recorded or represented on the khipu. The ‘nature’ of that mate-
rial could be identiªed as either: (a) all of one type (i.e., undiffer-
entiated at this initial level), in which case the strings would be all
attached in either verso or recto fashion; or (b) two different types,
one designated by the verso attachment, the other by the recto at-
tachment” (72). These statements are not consistent with a binary
code in which meaning is determined only by the entire sequence.
Contrary to Urton’s earlier claim, in this case, the value of each bi-
nary operation (each bit) would function in a one-to-one relation-
ship with a referent, not in a seven-bit binary system analogous
to modern computer code but in a series of seven one-bit binary
referential operations with a particular syntax.
Urton never explains how such a system works. One possibil-
ity is that the semantic couplet or canonical pair corresponding to
each binary feature would be stable, for a total of fourteen differ-
ent elements. This would not be a practical system, because it
could not exploit the potential of its 128 variations. If each binary
feature had a ªxed relationship to a paired set of referents,
its meanings could be combined to make sense in only limited
arrangements, and the role of an additional determiner, such as
color or number, that theoretically expands their range would
continue to be problematical. This disadvantage comes directly
586 | GAL E N B RO K AW

from assigning meaning to the bits themselves, as opposed to the

entire sequence.
Another possibility resembles a ºowchart more than a com-
puter-style binary code: The value of the binary pair or couplet
would be determined by the value of the immediately preceding
binary operation. The ªrst bit would make a determination be-
tween two general categories, such as animal/mineral. If coded for
animal, the next bit might distinguish between, say, feathered/
nonfeathered. The outcome of each binary decision would deter-
mine the binary values of the following bit. If the ªrst binary ele-
ment were coded as mineral, the next one would not signal
feathered or nonfeathered but a quality pertaining to minerals.
This ºowchart-type procedure would constitute a unique kind of
referential operation built upon the sequence of seven one-bit
codes, in a kind of successive binary analytic, or a kind of referen-
tial poetics, meaning a system in which a series of signiªers func-
tions both individually and collectively.
In spite of the repeated assertion that individual binary values
are simple signiªers that stand in a parallel or binary relation to the
other value of the binary feature, Urton returns to his contradic-
tory focus on the single knot as the basic unit of signiªcation in his
discussion of markedness and parallelism, arguing that the khipu
would have represented binary sets or canonical pairs in one of
two ways: (1) The referent of a single knot, as determined by the
entire sequence of binary values, corresponds to a canonical pair;
or (2) the referent of a single knot, as determined by the entire se-
quence of binary values, corresponds to one member of a canoni-
cal pair, with an adjacent knot signaling the other object or
concept with which it is linked. The ªrst case presents a complex
signiªer (a binary array) and a double referent (the binary pair).
The second alternative consists of a complex signiªer and a simple
referent with the poetic, binary relationship realized in the rela-
tionship with an adjacent knot. Neither of these two options asso-
ciates materially binary features of the khipu with the binary
principles evident in cultural referents, such as in semantic cou-
plets or parallelisms like inti (sun)/killa (moon), as Urton argued in
the earlier part of his book (66, 72, 116, 152).
Such a system does not necessarily conºict with the
ºowchart-type procedure in which each individual binary feature
of the khipu corresponds with a successively narrower classiªca-
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 587
tion culminating in the identiªcation of a speciªc object, concept,
or even pair of objects or concepts, but Urton does not reconcile
these procedures. He initially seemed to argue that the Incas could
easily have employed a system of reference in which the social and
linguistic principles of duality corresponded to the inherently bi-
nary material features of khipu construction. But his explanation
of the referential or semantic operation itself linked to semantic
couplets and parallelism shows no such correspondence. Although
the ºowchart-type system inferred from one part of Urton’s de-
scription would involve such a correspondence as part of a larger
collective operation (a referential poetics or successive binary ana-
lytic), no such correspondence is apparent in the two possible ref-
erential operations that Urton suggests at the level of the knot.
Analysis of Urton’s theory of binary coding discovers numer-
ous problems, some of which are merely methodological or minor
conceptual issues that may have formal or logical solutions. But
the issues presented herein raise serious questions about the viabil-
ity of Urton’s theory. The nature of the theory of binary coding
seems to stand in logical opposition to the theoretical basis of the
Aschers’ approach. If the decimal system itself were part of a more
complex system of representation, as the Aschers suggest, an addi-
tional code would be unnecessary. Assuming the validity of the
Aschers’ theoretical perspective, the only justiªcation for Urton’s
speculative theory of binary coding would be the inherent
binariness of many of the material features of the khipu. But
whether or not most of these binary elements were even signi-
ªcant in khipu semiosis remains unsubstantiated. Urton’s most
compelling argument for the conventionality of a binary feature
on at least some specimens has to do with knot directionality on
khipu such as AS104 (82–88). But even allowing that one or more
of these binary properties played a role in khipu semiosis does not
guarantee that the larger structure of the code itself was a com-
puter-style binary code. Nor does it imply the existence of a code
isomorphic with, but functionally separate from, the decimal place
system of numeric representation.
At this point, all of the evidence would seem to suggest that
the direction originally articulated by Uhle in “A Modern
Quipu,” systematized and implemented by Locke in The Ancient
Quipu, and revised and advanced by the Aschers is fundamentally
sound. Urton’s analysis may provide compelling evidence that
588 | GAL E N B RO K AW

knot directionality and perhaps other binary elements were, at

least in some cases, not simply incidental features of the khipu. But
this hypothesis is not inconsistent with the theoretical approach
espoused by the Aschers. A more logical and coherent way to ac-
count for the possibility that these binary features are semiotic
conventions would be to incorporate them into a theory of khipu
semiosis in which they complement the decimal code of numeri-
cal representation rather than constitute a completely separate sys-
tem. Conklin, for example, hinted at a way in which some of
these material features may have functioned in relation to the
Quechua language.14 Further advancement in understanding the
khipu will be founded on the traditional approach, theoretically
and empirically exploring khipu “numeracy” and its associated
material conventions. Urton may be correct that radically new
perspectives are necessary, but in the case of decimal khipu, at
least, these perspectives must produce results that complement nu-
merical readings.
Despite the difªculties inherent in Urton’s theory, it would
be unwise to reject it dogmatically. Theorists and their critics are
both heir to unforeseen epistemological barriers that make them
fallible. However, Urton’s theory of binary coding cannot succeed
without overcoming the contradictions and logical inconsistencies
discussed in this essay.
As Urton was the ªrst to point out, his theory is highly con-
jectural and speculative, as any would be, given our level of igno-
rance about the khipu. Decipherment invokes conjectural leaps of
faith, many of which will inevitably lead to failure. In spite of his
logical opposition to the Aschers’ approach, Urton is not conten-
tious about his theory. Nor does his previous work hinge on the
validity of the general theory of binary coding.15 He does not re-
ject the possibility that a more nuanced understanding of the deci-
mal system, in conjunction with other conventions, may reveal a

14 William Conklin, “A Khipu Information String Theory,” in Quilter and Urton (eds.),
Narrative Threads, 80–83.
15 See Urton, “A New Twist in an Old Yarn: Variations in Knot Directionality in the Inka
Khipus,” Baessler-Archiv Neue Folge, XLII (1994), 271–305; idem, “From Knots to Narratives:
Reconstructing the Art of Historical Record Keeping in the Andes,” Ethnohistory, XLV
(1998), 409–438; idem, “A Calendrical and Demographic Tomb Text From Northern Peru,”
Latin American Antiquity, XII (2001), 127–147; idem, “An Overview of Spanish Colonial
Commentary on Andean Knotted-String Records,” in Quilter and Urton (eds.), Narrative
Threads, 3–25; idem, “Recording Signs in Narrative Accounting Khipu,” in ibid., 171–196.
TOWAR D D E C I P H E R I N G T H E K H I P U | 589
much more sophisticated system of representation. Urton empha-
sizes that the value of his work recording material features is inde-
pendent of how the theory of binary coding may fare (129).
His electronic database in process contains detailed information
about the material features of hundreds of khipu. Although queries
of this database may help to verify or undermine the theory of
binary coding, it is not designed exclusively for this purpose.
This resource will facilitate the identiªcation of any kind of pat-
tern or structure that appears across a large corpus of archaeologi-
cal specimens.16
The theory of binary coding aside, Urton’s book is extremely
valuable for its treatment of mnemonics, its identiªcation and
analysis of material features of the khipu, and its sensitivity to
ethnographic information. Urton’s systematic analysis of the mate-
rial features of archaeological khipu constitutes a benchmark in the
history of khipu studies. The greatest weakness of Urton’s theory
of binary coding, that it raises more questions than it answers, is
also its greatest strength. Urton’s book will surely provoke further
debate, suggest alternative solutions, and push the study of the
khipu in new directions.
16 In a personal communication, Urton acknowledged the possibility of a more complex
system of representation based upon a combination of numerical and other conventions.