In this week’s reading , Making Machu Picchu by Mark Rice, Rice explores the political, economic, and social impacts that ensued in Peru after the “discovery” (an incorrect implication of lostness) of Machu Picchu by Hiram Bingham in the early 1900’s. Rice analyzes the residual effects that resulted from the promotion of Machu Picchu as a tourist destination- leading to its remaking and reinvention in ways that influenced Indigenous cultures and symbols national identities from Peruvian communities and leaders.
I’ve been sitting with this commodification of Machu Picchu that Rice discusses since coming to Aguas Calientes. The effects of tourism are prominent and more distinctive from some of the other places we have visited thus far in our travels in Peru. From the flashy lights to the Inca warrior statue posted on every street corner- the spectacle reminds me of a lot of places such as Whistler or Niagara Falls.
This commodification and curation of Indigeneity is something that I feel is especially prominent here in Aguas Calientes. Perhaps at first glance I would say that Indigeneity is more visibly expressed here- taking into account the large statues of chiefs, puma symbolisms, and historical myths carved in the sides of walls and mountains. I feel this type of imagery has been the most prominent in Aguas Calientes comparatively to any of the other towns we have visited.
However, after reading Rice’s text, I can’t help but feel so much of it is curated for outsiders exotification and entertainment; selling a concept of Indigeneity in a place that really wasn’t an important location for Indigenous communities to begin with. This type of commodification doesn’t sit quite right with me- colonial powers only promoting Indigenous symbolisms with the intent of molding and modifying this presence to serve a capitalist goal. I felt the Rice reading really emphasized how this national promotion of Indigentiy through the commercialization of their culture actually harms communities as they lose autonomy over cultural heritage.
2 replies on “Blog Post #9: The Making and Marketing of Indigeneity in Machu Picchu”
“(A)fter reading Rice’s text, I can’t help but feel so much of it is curated for outsiders exotification and entertainment(.)” I think we share the same discomfort. What bothered me was the spectacular nature of the simulacrum. I’ve never been to Disneyland, but from what I know, delight in the fake is part of the charm for many visitors. For example, the “indigenist” art I saw on the city’s public streets was downright disappointing, like that on a television set. I wonder who this city is specifically made for. Yes, for tourists. But who is the “ideal tourist” of those who make urban and political decisions in 2024 in Aguas Calientes? What is Indigenous for them?
“discovery” (an incorrect implication of lostness)
I really like this. Perhaps a different kind of lost than Bingham envisioned. It’s a little thing but it matters