THE ANCIENT QUIPU, A PERUVIAN KNOT RECORD
By L. LELAND LOCKE
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The following article by Mr Locke appears to be a genuine contribution to our knowledge of the quipus, and to make it quite certain that the knotted cords were used simply as numerical records, and not, as is often supposed, for narrative purposes. Mr Locke shows clearly that he is able to read the various authentic specimens, since his interpretation admits of a definite check. It would seem, therefore, that we have here the earliest known decimal notation of the Western World, at any rate the earliest that admitted of easy transportation. The publication of such an article will be of interest to archeologists as well as to those who work in the domain of the history of mathematics. For the latter, the quipu forms a chapter in the extensive history of the abacus, a topic that has never yet been worthily treated but one that Mr Locke is beginning to investigate.
David Eugene Smith,
Columbia University.
The use of knots in cord for the purpose of reckoning and recording number seems to have been as universal as the figures of the cat's cradle[1] in the play life of primitive peoples. Both may be said to be indigenous to all lands in which the arts of spinning, weaving, and dyeing have been cultivated. In two noteworthy cases tradition makes the knotted cord serve as letters. In China[2] knot records are said to have preceded the knowledge of writing.
In more recent times the most remarkable development of knot records took place among the Incas of Peru. Here is found the anomaly of a people with a highly complex civilization, particularly in governmental machinery, with a wealth of tradition, and with a peculiarly rich and expressive language, but with no system of
- ↑ Jayne, Caroline Furness, String Figures, New York, 1906.
- ↑ Carus, Tao-Teh-King, English edition, p. 137; Goguet, De l'Origine des Loix, etc., 1758, vol. iii, pp. 171, 312; De Mailla, Hist. Gen. de la Chine, vol. i, p. 4; Martini, Hist. de la Chine, vol. i, p. 21; Jour. Ethn. Soc., London, 1870, pp. 5, 13; Nature, 1876, vol. ii, p. 405.
325
