Megjelent 2026-01-02
Kulcsszavak
- cord,
- rope,
- knot,
- chord knotting,
- rope knotting
- Chinese writing,
- Chinese characters,
- oracle bone inscriptions,
- bronze inscriptions,
- seal script ...Tovább
Hogyan kell idézni
Copyright (c) 2026 Szigethy Balázs

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Absztrakt
Is it possible to demonstrate the existence of cord knotting in ancient China, and if so, how might it have influenced the evolution of the Chinese writing system?
In this paper I am aiming to examine the existence of cord knotting in ancient China and its potential influence on the evolution of Chinese writing. By reviewing extant Chinese scholarship and comparing cord knotting practices with similar mnemonic and accounting devices worldwide, I propose that although cord knotting predates Chinese writing, it did not directly lead to its development; rather, it evolved contemporaneously as an independent system of record keeping, that later contributed stylistic elements to the formation of Chinese characters. Cord knotting served as a mnemonic tool for recording labour days, wages, loans, and other vital economic transactions, and its visual conventions may have contributed to the formation of the silk classifier found in many Chinese characters. This study situates cord knotting within broader global practices while reevaluating traditional Chinese texts, suggesting that the aesthetic and functional elements of knotted cords played a significant role in the emergence and evolution of Chinese logographs.
Building on this claim, the paper develops three lines of argument. First, it establishes a global comparative baseline for ‘rope media’ by synthesizing Cyrus L. Day’s tripartite typology—magical/apotropaic, mnemonic (numerical and cultural), and practical knots—and by reviewing rich cross-cultural cases such as the Andean khipu, Polynesian and North American mnemonic cords, Hawaiian ‘tax-gatherer’s memorandum cords’, and the Ryukyuan warazan straw-cord counting system. These analogues demonstrate that knot-based records can sustain durable administrative functions—time-reckoning, tribute accounting, genealogical recall—without becoming phonographic writing. They therefore provide a plausible technological ecology within which a Chinese cord-record system could have coexisted with, but remained distinct from, early script.
The study re-examines Chinese classical references to cord knotting (Yi·xici, Shuowen postface, Zheng Xuan’s commentaries, Wenxin diaolong, Zhuangzi, and ethnographic notices) not as direct proof but as cultural memory of an administrative practice. To avoid what I call ‘textual primacy bias’, these sources are balanced against palaeographic and archaeological evidence. Applying Demattè’s criteria for identifying precursors to Shang script, the paper concludes that cord knotting does not qualify as writing in the strict sense, functioning instead as a mnemonic aid for counting and verification. Claims that rope impressions, such as those at Dadiwan, represent archives of records are re-evaluated and more plausibly interpreted as constructional remains, though they still confirm rope’s availability in the Neolithic.
At the same time, a narrower stylistic influence is proposed in line with Keightley’s ‘visual pun’ model, whereby script signs schematize familiar tools and practices. Early forms of 糸 and related graphs (叀, 專, 傳) may encode the cord, the knot, the knot-keeper, and the act of transmission. Other graphs tied to numbers, contracts, and genealogy (e.g., 廿, 卅, 卌, 貰, 貸, 世, 孫) plausibly echo domains where knot records were used—tallying, valuing, and marking descent. This does not imply a linear derivation of writing from cords, but rather that knotting culture provided visual and conceptual resources for scribes.
Cord knotting is therefore best understood as a parallel technology that was eventually supplanted by graphemic writing, yet left stylistic fingerprints in early Chinese script, particularly within silk-classifier graphs and administrative vocabulary. While perishable materials make direct proof unlikely, archaeological preconditions—rope production, counting needs, and social complexity—support the plausibility of such systems. In this light, writing in China developed independently but might have absorbed aspects of cord knotting’s visual and semantic logic.
Hivatkozások
- Bagley, Robert W. 2004. ‘Anyang Writing and the Origin of the Chinese Writing System’. In: Stephen D. Houston (ed.) The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. New York: Cambridge University Press, 190–249.
- Boltz, William G. 1994. Origin And Early Development Of The Chinese Writing System. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
- Bushell, S. W. 1880. ‘The Early History of Tibet. From Chinese Sources’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 12.4: 435–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00017639 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00017639
- Campbell, Lyle 1984. ‘The Implications of Mayan Historical Linguistics for Glyphic Research’. In: John Justeson – Lyle Campbell (eds.) *Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing*. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York at Albany, 1–16.
- Csikó Anna 2022. ‘Bizonyítható-e, hogy a kínai írás a Shang-kor előtt alakult ki? [Can It be Proven that Chinese Writing Existed before the Shang Dynasty?]’ Távol-keleti Tanulmányok 14.2: 15–45. https://doi.org/10.38144/TKT.2022.2.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38144/TKT.2022.2.2
- Day, Cyrus Lawrence 1957. ‘Knots and Knot Lore: Quipus and Other Mnemonic Knots’. Western Folklore 16.1: 8–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1497058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1497058
- Day, Cyrus Lawrence 2021. Quipus and Witches’ Knots: The Role of the Knot in Primitive and Ancient Culture, with a Translation and Analysis of “Oribasius de Laqueis”. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1p2gkwx DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1p2gkwx
- Demattè, Paola 2010. ‘The Origins of Chinese Writing: The Neolithic Evidence’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20.2: 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774310000247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774310000247
- Françoise Bottéro 2002. ‘Revisiting the Wén 文 and the Zì 字: The Great Chinese Characters Hoax’. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 74: 14–33.
- Galambos, Imre 2006. Orthography of Early Chinese Writing: Evidence from Newly Excavated Manuscripts. Budapest: Department of East Asian Studies, Eötvös Loránd University, 33–61.
- Hyland, Sabine – Gene A. Ware – Madison Clark 2014. ‘Knot Direction in a Khipu/Alphabetic Text from the Central Andes’. Latin American Antiquity 25.2: 189–197. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.25.2.189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.25.2.189
- Jacobsen, Lyle E. 1983. ‘Use of Knotted String Accounting Records in Old Hawaii and Ancient China’. The Accounting Historians Journal 10.2: 53–61. https://doi.org/10.2308/0148-4184.10.2.53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/0148-4184.10.2.53
- Ji Shaoyu 嵇绍玉 2020. “结绳:5000 多年前划破混沌的闪电” [‘Knotted Cords: The Lightning that Pierced Chaos over 5000 Years Ago’]. 中国艺术报 Zhōngguó Yìshù Bào 2020.8.17: 1–2.
- Jin Qingwan 靳青万 1996. “论甲骨文字与结绳记事之关系” [‘On the Relationship between Oracle Bone Script and the Practice of Knot-Recording’]. 殷都学刊 Yīndū xuékān 1996.03. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:YDXK.0.1996-03-004.
- Keightley, David N. 1996. ‘Art, Ancestors, and the Origins of Writing in China’. Representations 56: 68–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2928708
- Kinjo, Matsuei – Kotagiri, Tadato 1980. ‘琉球における算術の研究(1) -わら算(結縄算)- [A Study of Arithmetic in Ryukyu (1)-Warazan (Ryukyuan Knotted Cords)]’. 琉球大学教育学部紀要 第二部 24: 1–9. Published online September 4, 2009. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12000/12370.
- Liu Zhengying 刘正英 2000. “我国上古结绳记事探究” [An Exploration of Knotted Cord Record-Keeping in Ancient China]. 寻根 Xúngēn, 4–12. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XGZZ.0.2000-05-000.
- Liu Zhiyuan 刘志远 1996. “关于我国古代结绳记事的探讨” [A Study on the Practice of Knot-Recording in Ancient China]. 河南教育学院学报(哲学社会科学版) Henan Jiaoyu Xueyuan Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban) 01: 81–84+98. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:HZJX.0.1996-01-017.
- Mann, Charles C. 2003. ‘Cracking the Khipu Code’. Science 300.5626: 1650–1651. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.300.5626.1650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.300.5626.1650
- Mann, Charles C. 2005a ‘Unraveling Khipu’s Secrets’. Science 309.5737: 1008–1009. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5737.1008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5737.1008
- Mann, Charles C. 2005b. ‘Oldest Civilization in the Americas Revealed’. Science 307.5706: 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.307.5706.34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.307.5706.34
- Packard, Jerome L. 1996. Review of Review of The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System, by William G. Boltz. Language 72.4: 801–804. https://doi.org/10.2307/416104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416104
- Solis, Ruth Shady – Jonathan Haas – Winifred Creamer 2001. ‘Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the Central Coast of Peru’. Science 292.5517: 723–726. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059519
- Urton, Gary 2003. Signs of the Inka Khipu: Binary Coding in the Andean Knotted-String Records. Austin: University of Texas Press.
- Urton, Gary – Brezine, Carrie J. 2005. ‘Khipu Accounting in Ancient Peru’. Science 309.5737: 1065–1067. DOI: 10.1126/science.1113426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1113426
- Urton, Gary 2014. ‘From Middle Horizon Cord-Keeping to the Rise of Inka Khipus in the Central Andes’. Antiquity 88.339: 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00050316 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00050316
- Xu Jiming 徐继明 2002. “对人类阅读活动开端, ‘结绳记事’的认识” [On the Beginning of Human Reading Activity and the Understanding of ‘Knot-Recording’]. 枣庄师范高等专科学校图书馆建设 Zaozhuang Shifan Gaodeng Zhuanke Xuexiao Tushu Guan Jianshe, 109–110. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:TSGJ.0.2002-06-042.
- Xu Shen 許慎 2010. Shuōwén Jiězì fùjiǎnzì 說文解字附檢字. (宋)徐鉉校定. 北京: 中華書局影印. [Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters, with Supplementary Index. (Collated edition by Xu Xuan of the Song dynasty.) Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, facsimile edition.]
- Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒 1998. “结绳遗俗考” [An Examination of the Surviving Customs of Knot-Recording]. Originally printed March 2, 1944, at the Liúqīng Yuàn (留青院) of Chuāndà in Chengdu; originally published in Shuōwén Yuèkān (说文月刊) Consolidated Volume 4 (June 1944). Reprinted in 1998 in Xu Zhongshū Lìshǐ Lùnwén Xuǎnjí (徐中舒历史论文选辑) [Selected Historical Papers of Xu Zhongshū], 2 vols., 705–712.
- Zhao Jianlong 赵建龙 1983. “秦安大地湾405号新石器时代房屋遗址” [Neolithic House Site No. 405 at Dadiwan, Qin’an]. 文物 Wenwu, 15–19+30. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:WENW.0.1983-11-002.
- Zhuang Jiandong 庄建东 2008. “汉字起源新说——‘仓颉’: 结绳记事向符号记事过渡时期的记事方法” [A New Theory on the Origin of Chinese Characters: ‘Cang Jie’ and Knot-Recording as a Transitional Method toward Symbolic Notation]. 新乡学院学报(社会科学版) Xinxiang Xueyuan Xuebao (Shehui Kexue Ban) 22.4: 105–109. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XXSF.0.2008-04-032.
