Untangling the Past: Inkan Khipus, Writing, and the Problematic Prominence of “Prehistory”

Abstract

Despite​ arguments against different interpretations, all common interpretations of the​ recording​ ability of the Inkan khipu can and should be considered writing. Whether the knotted​ strands​ hold an alphabetical structure, narrative or narrative memory aids, or a numerical​ recording,​ they were an effective communication device and should assert the Inka as a historical​ people,​ not a prehistoric one. The debate over this distinction reveals how entrenched the​ Western​ value of writing is in archaeological theory, and brings to light the complications in​ using​ the advent of writing as the pivotal factor that determines a society moving from prehistory​ into​ history. This paper uses the Inkan khipu as a case study for the limited scope of writing as a​ definition,​ prehistory as a temporal distinction, and challenges the foundational nature of both in​ the​ field of archaeology.​