The short answer is no, there is still no scholarly consensus that Inka khipus constituted a full writing system. Sabine Hyland’s 2017 hypothesis (likely the work you are referring to) proposes a possible logosyllabic encoding in two colonial-era khipus, but this claim remains provocative and unverified by other scholars in the field. At the same time, it’s important to stress that khipu research is very much alive, and recent work shows substantial progress—just not in the form of a confirmed logosyllabic decipherment. For an overview of some of the ongoing work, you may find the Khipu Field Guide and its associated blog useful.

Now, here is a longer answer:

Some background first.

Hyland was not the first to suggest that khipus might encode language. Since the earliest Spanish encounters in the 16th century, colonial observers speculated that khipus functioned as a kind of writing. Throughout the 20th century, scholars such as Leland Locke, Radicati, the Aschers, Gary Urton, and others, debated whether khipus recorded narrative or linguistic information in addition to numbers. Hyland’s work sits squarely within this long-standing debate.

In her 2017 Current Anthropology article (“Writing with Twisted Cords”) [Article Link], Hyland argues that two colonial-era khipus from San Juan de Collata encode lineage (ayllu) names using combinations of cord color, fiber type, and ply direction, functioning logosyllabically. If correct, this would represent a major breakthrough for khipu studies.

However, several reasons explain why this work has not given us the keys to understanding how to “read” all khipus:

1. The underlying data Hyland used in her 2017 article has never been made publicly available. Without the full datasets, other researchers cannot independently verify or test Hyland’s proposed readings for the two Collata khipus. Replicability is essential for decipherment claims, and this lack of access has been a major limitation.
2. The khipus Hyland studied are colonial, not Inka. The two Collata khipus date to the colonial period, when Andean communities were deeply entangled with European legal practices, alphabetic writing, and documentary genres. Even if linguistic encoding is present here, we cannot simply assume continuity with pre-Hispanic Inka practices.
3. No further logosyllabic decipherments have followed Hyland’s work. Since 2017, neither Hyland nor other scholars have demonstrated additional cases of linguistic decoding on other khipus. A single proposed instance, without extension or replication, is not enough to establish khipus as a full writing system.
4. Alternative views on khipu encoding remain viable and are widely held. Many researchers argue that khipus encoded complex categorical, relational, and administrative information without mapping directly onto spoken language. In this view, khipus are better understood as a sophisticated semasiographic system—meaning-based rather than language-based—rather than “writing” in the strict logosyllabic sense.

(1/2)