The scientific discovery of Machu Picchu cast doubt on the accuracy of colonial records, which is a concern for western historians who are trying to reconstruct the history of the Inca people who built it.Many historians and scientists believe that the famous Peru site was constructed after AD1438. This assumption has been supported for more than 75 years. This assumption was based on Spanish 16-century accounts of their conquest in the region. However, radiocarbon dating techniques have been able to date the remains using enhanced radiocarbon dating methods. This means that it could be at most two decades older.According to Prof Richard Burger, Yale University's lead researcher, the results indicate that any discussion about the Inca empire's development based solely on colonial records needs revision.The modern radiocarbon method provides a better foundation to understand Inca chronology, than the inconsistent historical records.Although the historical site is well-known, its history and those who used it are still a mystery to western historians.Each year, the ancient citadel would attract over a million people. However, it has been difficult to understand its history due to cultural differences such as the lack of historical records that are current and readable by Europeans.Burger was part of a US team that conducted accelerator mass spectrometry, (AMS), dating human remains from Machu Picchu.The remains of 26 people were examined by the researchers. Their findings, published in Antiquity, a peer-reviewed journal, strongly supported the idea of continuous site use from at least 1420 and possibly earlier, up to 1530. This date roughly corresponds with the beginning of the Spanish conquest over the Inca empire.Burger said that this is the first scientifically supported study to give an estimate of the time it took for Machu Picchu to be founded and how long it has been occupied. Previous attempts at such an estimations were not reliable.Academics are divided on the relative value of archeological and historical records when developing historical narratives. According to Dr Gabriela Ramos from Cambridge University, Inca chronology is an issue of dispute among historians and archaeologists.Because written accounts and archaeological evidence don't always match, it is possible to date Inca sites. Written accounts have been the foundation of historians and anthropologists for decades. However, it is only recently that radiocarbon dating and archaeological evidence are being used to enhance or alter our understanding of precolombian societies.Because very few Inca tombs survived due to looting, and overall in Andean archaeological research, the Inca period remains the least studied, it means that we don't know as much about them as about their predecessors.According to Dr Trish Biers (an osteologist at this same institution), colonial records can help us understand what the Spanish saw at that time. However, they were heavily influenced and influenced by religious superiority and political propaganda.She stated that scientific methods, especially on human remains can provide insight into people's experiences, such as diet, disease, and labour at both the individual and population levels. This is quite cool.Ramos stated that historical records should not be ignored in favor of scientific methods alone. Understanding the motivation behind Inca politics and Inca religion, and how they relate to conquered or allied populations would not be helpful. Scholars would have difficulty understanding and contextualising their findings.Machu Picchu is now Unesco's world heritage site. It is believed that the Inca used it as a country palace. John Rowe, a historian, published work in 1945 that suggested that the date was most likely for the construction of Machu Picchu. Many academics later accepted it as the most probable.This belief was based upon the belief that Pachacuti, the Incan emperor, conquered the lower Urubamba Valley in Peru (which includes Machu Picchu) in 1438. Construction likely occurred between 1440 and 1450.
