Page Text: Correction
The story of Hiram Bingham’s “scientific discovery” of Machu Picchu has been the topic of scores of books and articles. We can read Bingham’s own words through his many publications ( 1911 , 1912b , 1913 , 1914 , 1915 , 1922 , 1930 , 1948 ) and journals ( 1912a ). There are also biographies of Bingham (Bingham 1989 ; Heaney 2010 ), discussions concerning the discovery itself (Burger and Salazar 2004 ), and examinations of the artifacts recovered during Bingham’s work at the site (Burger and Salazar 2003 , 2012 ; Gordon 2012 ; Lechtman 2007 ; Miller 2003 ; Owen 2012 ; Verano 2003 ). There have also been retellings of the events that occurred several decades before and after its discovery (Buck 1993 ; Greer 2008 ; Thomson 2003 ; Mould de Pease and Romero Pacheco 2008 ), explorations of early colonial archival materials that mention the ruins and the Vilcabamba region (Bauer et al. 2016 ; Glave and Remy 1983 ; Julien 1998 , 2000 ; Rowe 1990 ), and reflections on how the ruins of Machu Picchu tie into the larger narrative of the invasion of the Villcabamba region by the Spaniards and the end of the Inca empire (Bauer et al. 2015 ; Guillén Guillén 2005a , 2005b ; Hemming 1970 ; Lee 2000 ; MacQuarrie 2007 ). 1 So, the question remains: is there anything new to be said about Bingham’s work and Machu Picchu? After more than a century of reanalysis, do we now know all the important details concerning Bingham’s work in the region, or is it worth our time to review the data, and renew our understanding of Machu Picchu’s early twentieth century discovery and our modern understanding of the ruins?
We believe it is important to review the extensive literature on Machu Picchu, and that by focusing on specific topics, new understandings of the ruins can be put forward. It is important to do so since Machu Picchu is one of the best-known archaeological sites of the world and it is at the heart of Peru’s tourist industry. Revisiting known information can reveal new aspects of Machu Picchu and its discovery, as well as on its builders and the role of the site in the Inca Empire. In this article we focus on what the Inca’s called the city at the time of its occupation.
More than 30 years ago, the eminent Andean scholar John Rowe ( 1990 ) proposed, through the use of archival land documents, that the ruins we now call Machu Picchu was known as Picchu at the time of its occupation. In this article, we build on Rowe’s observations but suggest that the ruins were more likely called Huayna Picchu and that there was an initial misunderstanding of the local toponyms at the time of Bingham’s first visit, which has been uncritically repeated over the past century. Skeptics of this task might claim that given the vast changes in local populations that have lived in the region of the ruins over the past five centuries and the great distance that separates us from the time of the Spanish invasion, that research into a specific toponym is a futile task. Acknowledging the difficulties involved, we review three independent data bases for converging information concerning the original name of Machu Picchu. In doing so, we walk across some well-trodden ground, pointing out minor observations that may have been missed, or felt unimportant, by earlier researchers. We begin with the uncertainty of the name of the ruins when Bingham first visited them and then review several maps and atlases printed before Bingham’s visit to the ruins. We end with a stunning, late 16th century account (AD 1588) when the indigenous people of the region were considering returning to reoccupy the site which they called Huayna Picchu.
The archaeological remains of Machu Picchu (2430 masl) are located high above the Urubamba River on a narrow saddle between two mountain peaks. The larger peak, called Machu Picchu (3082 masl), stands to the south, while the smaller peak, Huayna Picchu (2720 masl), is located to the north. In the words of Hiram Bingham, “On the narrow ridge between these two peaks are the ruins of an Inca city whose name has been lost in the shadows of the past” (emphasis added, Bingham 1930 :1). Bingham first visited the ruins of the Inca city in 1911, after which he began publishing a series of articles and books on it. He returned to Peru in 1912 and 1914/15 to conduct additional research on this astounding find.
When Bingham returned to conduct specific research at the Inca city in 1912, a strange, and little noted, event occurred. On 29 July, as Bingham and his team were beginning to clear the site of overgrowth, Ignacio Ferro—the son of the landowner, Mariano Ignacio Ferro—arrived with several workers. Ignacio told Bingham that the ruined city was in fact considered to be on Huayna Picchu and that there were other, more impressive archaeological remains on the summit of Machu Picchu. Bingham recorded this event in his field journal:
[Mariano Ignacio] Ferro’s son appeared this morning with 6 or 7 strong Indians from his sugar estate of Huayupata. He says we are at Huaina Picchu that Machu Picchu is much larger and finer and is on top of the high ridge s[outh] of us (Bingham 1912a :9).
The next day Bingham, Ignacio Ferro, and his group of workers, climbed to the top of Machu Picchu Mountain. Although they did find some Inca remains along the route and near the summit (see Bingham 1913 :441–443, 453), these remains were nothing in comparison to the ruined city located far below near Huayna Picchu. Having investigated the claim that there were major ruins located on the summit of Machu Picchu Mountain, Bingham returned to clearing the vegetation and documenting the extent of the ruins that we now know as Machu Picchu.
While young Ferro’s claim that there were more impressive ruins at the summit of Machu Picchu Mountain, were investigated, his suggestion that the ruined city was in fact called Huayna Picchu was never taken seriously. In this article, we review three independent data bases, for information concerning the original name of Machu Picchu:
Bingham’s notes and other materials related to his work at the site,
early maps and atlases descriptions of the region, and
seventeenth century land documents held in the Archivo Regional del Cusco.
The results of our review provide support for Ferro’s assertion and raises the possibility that the city of Machu Picchu was known during the time of the Inca as Huayna Picchu.
Bingham’s 1911 Visit to Machu Picchu
We begin our review of toponyms associated with the site of Machu Picchu with Bingham’s first visit. Bingham arrived in Cusco in early July 1911, with the goal of identifying the location of two cities, Vitcos and Vilcabamba, from which the Inca led a nearly 40 year long war of resistance against the Spaniards (Bauer et al. 2015 ; Guillén Guillén 2005a , 2005b , Hemming 1970 ; Lee 2000 ; MacQuarrie 2007 ). Informed by recently found documents describing the last decades of the Incas, published by Carlos Romero ( 1909 ), Bingham suspected that the Inca cities of Vitcos and Vilcabamba were located in the Vilcabamba region to the northwest of Cusco. Yet he was not certain, since the well-known geographer Raimondi ( 1872 ) had visited the region many years earlier and had not reported any significant archaeological remains.
While in Cusco, Bingham received several tips concerning the existence of Inca remains along the Urubamba River and others within the Vilcabamba region. For example, Bingham ( 1912b :200) heard from a wealthy landowner that a muleteer had mentioned visiting some “interesting ruins near the San Miguel bridge.” 2 Other individuals provided even more detailed information. For example, while visiting the town of Urubamba to purchase additional mules for his expedition, Bingham had a conversation with Adolfo Quevedo, the subprefect of the town. Quevedo told Bingham that there were ruins called Huayna Picchu down the Urubamba River. Bingham writes ( 1912b :201), “a talkative old fellow who had spent a large part of his life in prospecting for mines in the department of Cusco, said that he had seen ruins ‘finer than Choqquequirau’ at a place called Huayna Picchu.” 3
Finally, and most importantly, Albert Giesecke (1962, cited in Heaney 2010 ), the Rector of the Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, advised Bingham that he should take a relatively new trail 4 that followed the course of the Urubamba River below the town of Ollantaytambo. This recommendation was based on Giesecke’s own experiences, since he had traveled the river route less than a year earlier, accompanied by a local landowner named Braulio Polo y la Borda. 5 Giesecke explained that when he and Polo y la Borda passed an area called Mandor Pampa they met a man named Melchor Arteaga who informed them that there were ruins on the ridge high above the river. Rain prevented Giesecke from climbing the ridge, however, he suggested that Bingham should investigate this information.
Bingham left Cusco on July 19 and reached the town of Ollantaytambo the next day. Below Ollantaytambo, the Urubamba River Valley narrows, and its steep cliffs, wild rapids, and dense vegetation make travel along its course extremely difficult. For centuries, most trade between Cusco and the region to its northwest had avoided this difficult stretch of the valley by taking a longer route, toward the lowlands via the Amaybamba Valley. Following Giesecke’s advice, Bingham chose the trail that traveled directly down the Urubamba River.
On the evening of July 23 Bingham arrived at Mandor Pampa beside the Urubamba River. Soon after stopping, the tenant farmer who lived there, Melchor Arteaga, approached the travelers. When Arteaga learned of Bingham’s interests in ruins, he reported that there were “some excellent ones on top of the opposite mountain, called Huayna Picchu, and also on a ridge called Machu Picchu” (Bingham 1912b :215). 6 Arteaga, who had visited the ruins before, agreed to take Bingham to the ruins the following day. That evening, or early the next morning, Bingham wrote “Maccu Piccu, Huayna Pichu” in his journal.
Bingham’s two U.S. companions elected to remain in camp the next day (July 24), so Bingham set out with his military escort (Sergeant Carrasco) and Arteaga to visit the site. After stopping briefly for food and water at a hut of one of the two families that were farming the ridge, Bingham was led by a young boy to the edge of a wonderfully preserved, although thickly overgrown, Inca ruin. Less than a week after leaving Cusco, Bingham had come upon one of the greatest ruins of Peru.
Bingham spent the next several hours exploring the ruins. As he was taking notes and photographs of the various buildings, he found the name “Lizarraga” and the date “July 14, 1902” written with charcoal on some of the walls ( Figure 1 ). 7 , 8 Bingham also made two sketch maps of the ruins and jotted down observations on various buildings before the light began to fade and he returned to the valley floor.
The Ancient Inca Town Named Huayna Picchu
All authors