Talk:Quipu

Tzitzit Section

The cryptic references in this article to gematrical information encoded in tzitzit are 1) a bit irrelevant and 2) inaccurate. That is, the article refers to them as "widely speculated". In fact, the original Talmudic and Halakhic sources for the order of tying tzitzit state right out that they are gematrical. There is no mystery or hidden message here. I'm sorry I do not have the sources to able to quote them, but a simple google search or Chabad.org will prove my point. Ask your local orthodox rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.240.40 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of article

I was wondering when we'd use quipu instead of khipu... --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. English texts I've read always referred to the object as quipu, not khipu. And Wikipedia:Use common names says that we go by the most common name. Quipu gets 67,200 Google hits, as opposed to only 28,300 for khipu. —Lowellian (talk) 17:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

About the name of the article

The thing is the word quipu is the Spanish way to talk about the Quechua word Khipu. So one has to choose form which language the loanword is going to be taken. I prefer the first one, that is, quipu. But many American anthropologists use the second one.

Missing picture?

I get the title "Representation of a quipu" as a subtitle to its own text. Refreshing didn't seem to help. User:83.109.185.167

Color Image

I don't have Quipus of my own, but I do know that color is fundamental to the process. Does anyone have a higher--quality image for the Commons? Thanks, Gchriss 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Knot theory category?

I don't think this should be in the knot theory category. Quipus are knots in the colloquial sense of the word but not in the knot theoretic sense of the word. So if no one objects, I'll remove that category. JoshuaZ 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

los quipus eran instrumento d contabilidad para los incas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.244.188 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Khipu a semiotic system that stands in for writing?

Dr. Galen Brokaw argues in A History of the Khipu (Cambridge U P, 2010), that the khipu is a semiotic system that stands in for writing, despite traditional allegations that Andean peoples had no writing but were only oral cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Inca Quipu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Inca Quipu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Inca Quipu.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Remembered Television Show

Back in the 80s or early 90s, I remember a TV program discussing quipu. I believe it was on PBS. In that show, they talked about everything that is in this article but they also had interviews with a couple of old Quechua speakers who explained that quipu had also been used to encode messages through a syllabary based on a long and well-known Quechua poem. Each set of knots specified certain syllables of the poem which could then be used to create messages. Some words had to be approximated by puns and wordplay since the right syllables did not occur in the poem.

I've never seen this information anywhere else and I've looked but I certainly do remember the television program. Anyone have information on that? Halfelven (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Museum Question

I reformatted all of the museum information in the Archeaological investigation section into a table. While doing so, I noticed that the reference for the museum redirects to the domain page, which looks like a blog that started in February 2012. The reference for the database, which seems to be where the locations and such came from, has data entries for the Leymebamba provenance with the museum name "Centro Mallqui, Leymebamba, Amazonas", which was enough evidence for me to change the location in the wiki to be Leimebamba. However, another site seems to advertise a Centro Mallqui in Lima. It's very possible that the museum moved to Lima in the 9 years between data collection and now, but I'm not sure how to go about verifying this short of emailing the museum in Lima. --jandew (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I suddenly got the idea to check the way back machine, and sure enough, the old page seems to support the idea that the museum exist(ed/s) in Leimebamba, possibly as a branch of sorts of the Centro Mallqui in Lima. Not entirely sure, though. Also not sure if it's appropriate to change the reference to go to the way back machine link. --jandew (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm the museum still existed last month, since me and my wife visited it then. 86.95.178.109 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC).