It would be interesting to find out whether Donato Amado Gonzales’ research actually endeared himself to his employer. The historian works for the Peruvian Ministry of Culture in Cusco. And now, together with the anthropologist Brian Bauer from the University of Illinois in Chicago, he has ventured to Machu Picchu, Peru’s quintessential tourist attraction. The name “Machu Picchu” is not only in tourist guides, on signs and entrance tickets, the name is a brand known worldwide. According to the Ministry of Culture, even in the Corona year 2021, despite the pandemic, 447,800 people visited the ruined city of the Incas northwest of Cusco. But according to Amado Gonzales and Bauer, there is a misconception: the name is wrong. According to them, Machu Picchu was originally called “Huayna Picchu”, maybe just “Picchu”. This is the result of a study by two scientists the ones in the magazine Ñawpa Pacha has appeared.
The fact that the name “Machu Picchu” is not necessarily authentic is not new. The Incas built the city in the 15th century but left no written sources. Historians are therefore largely dependent on what others have reported about the Incas. The name “Machu Picchu” goes back to the American explorer Hiram Bingham, who came across the ruins by accident in 1911 and in 1913 im National Geographic known worldwide as “Machu Picchu”. But Bingham himself knew that wasn’t necessarily the real name. This was “lost in the shadows of the past,” he wrote. “Machu Picchu” has nevertheless prevailed.
Probably wrongly, Amando Gonzales and Bauer now think. They analyzed Bingham’s diaries, as well as historical maps and reports from 19th-century European travelers. Bingham relied on the advice of his guide, a local farmer, but he may have been wrong, they write. On older maps they found very different entries, but also a reference to a town called “Huayna Picchu”. That the place was really called that, they deduce mainly from a document from 1588, which is in the regional archive of Cusco. It tells of the then already ended war of the Spanish conquerors against rebellious Incas. Serfs of the Spaniards report that they once helped to uncover a conspiracy. Locals secretly wanted to repossess a place they called “Huayna Picchu” to maintain their ancient rites. According to Amado Gonzales and Bauer, they meant the supposed Machu Picchu.
It is unclear whether the search for the true name is over. Both names in question initially refer to two peaks, the 3082 meter high “old mountain” (Quechua: “Machu Picchu”) and the 2720 meter high “young mountain” (“Huayna Picchu”). The ruined city lies on the ridge in between, and to top it all off, not only are there Inca ruins there, there were also buildings and a temple at the top of “Huayna Picchu”. The question is therefore not only when a name appears, but also: What is meant in each case, the mountain or the settlement – and which one? Who understood when what by what?
For example, the name “Machu Picchu” appears as early as the 19th century, before Bingham’s expedition. According to Amado Gonzales and Bauer, however, only the mountain was meant in these cases. At that time, most people would not have known that there was a town on the ridge.