The site may be named after a simple misunderstanding.
According to a new analysis of historical documents, the ancient Incan city we know as "Machu Picchu" should be called "Picchu" or "Huayna Picchu".
When Hiram Bingham was first led to the ancient Incan ruins, he asked a local farmer to write down the name of the site in his field journal.
The local farmer, named Melchor Arteaga, wrote "Macho Pischo" in the middle of the page.
The name stuck. For more than a century, this title has been repeated on maps, in documents and in history books. Some experts second-guessed the name in the 1990s.
In the early 20th century, the Incan ruins of Machu Picchu were not known by many locals in the region. The mountains on either side of the city were well known.
The small and steep peak behind the ruins is called "Huayna Picchu", whereas the larger, sloped peak to the south is called "Machu Picchu".
The maps are from the internet.
There is an aerial view of the mountain.
The leader of a nearby town referred to the ruins as "Huayna Picchu" when he talked to Bingham, according to his journals.
A few days later, a local farmer reported that there were some ruins nearby. He said that there were other ruins on the summit of the mountain, but they were much smaller than the ones that are closer to the citadel.
He wrote about the site in his journal. After Arteaga scribbled down the now famous name in response to Bingham, he settled on "Machu Picchu" for good. Perhaps the ruins of Machu Picchu were not mentioned by Arteaga.
The authors of the new analysis say that from his field notes and his letter, it appears that Bingham was following the information provided by Melchor Arteaga.
Since Mr. Arteaga lived at the base of the mountain, there was no reason for him to question the name of the ruins.
A 1904 atlas created by another explorer references an Incan town called Huayna Picchu.
There are several other sources that mention the ancient town of Huayna Picchu, as well as documents from Spanish settlers. There is no reference to the city of Machu Picchu.
It is interesting that we don't know of a reference to a city called Machu Picchu before news of the visit exploded across the world in 1912.
John Rowe was the first to use archival documents to argue that Machu Picchu was a lie.
He pointed to several letters and documents from the 16th century that referred to an ancient Incan town.
The researchers disagree with each other. According to local knowledge, the site is more likely to be called "Huayna Picchu" than "Machu Picchu".
Several minor observations that have been overlooked or deemed unimportant by earlier researchers are highlighted by them.
In one journal entry, he wrote that an old man who had spent a lot of time in prospecting for mines in the department of Cusco said that he had seen ruins.
Several other conversations support this reference.
While the name of the fantastic ruins that he brought to the world was lost in the shadows of the past, it is of some comfort that continued.
The study was published in a journal.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
