Machu Picchu is without a doubt one of the most iconic archaeological sites in the world, and holds a unique position in history. As Mark Rice eloquently observes in Making Machu Picchu, “Unlike most historic sites visited by tourists, Machu Picchu is defined not by its prominence but by its relative absence in Peruvian history over three centuries. Indeed, Machu Picchu is arguably more famous for being ‘forgotten’ than known.” I was surprised to learn about this forgotten citadel’s rise to global prominence in the 20th century and the associated political motives and transnational efforts that were involved. I was even more surprised during our guided tour of the lost city, to discover that our local Peruvian guide told a similar tale, that Machu Picchu is not a particularly “special” Incan dwelling, but rather its fame comes from a unique set of circumstances that aligned to make it so.
During the early 20th century, the promotion of tourism in South America became a strategic endeavor for several nations, including Peru. This was a period when the region aimed to rebrand itself, moving away from the dark memories of colonial exploitation and towards a future of economic growth and cultural recognition. Machu Picchu was “rediscovered” by Hiram Bingham in 1911, and became a symbol of this transformation. Its “forgotten” status was not seen as a disadvantage but rather a captivating narrative that intrigued both global audiences and scholars.
There were multiple political motivations behind promoting Machu Picchu as a tourist destination. For Peru, it was an opportunity to foster national pride and identity, leveraging the ancient Incan heritage to strengthen cultural cohesion. Additionally, the blossoming tourism industry was an opportunity for potential economic growth, which could drive infrastructure development and create jobs. Transnational contributions also played a significant role in this process. The United States specifically became very involved, driven partly by the Good Neighbor Policy introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. This policy aimed to improve relations with Latin American countries through cooperation and mutual respect, while avoiding military interventions in favor of economic and cultural partnerships. Under the Good Neighbor Policy, various initiatives were launched to boost tourism in Latin America, with Machu Picchu benefiting considerably. American scholars, explorers, and tourists were encouraged to visit and study the site, bringing international attention and investment. The involvement of American institutions, such as National Geographic, which sponsored Bingham’s expeditions, further amplified Machu Picchu’s allure.
By the mid-20th century, Machu Picchu transformed from an obscure ruin into a symbol of Incan grandeur. I can honestly say that I was very impressed at the initial sight of the citadel. As the tour advanced onward however, and our guide continued to emphasize the ordinary nature of the site, and contrasted it with the grandeur of the remaining ruins of Cusco, my initial awe gradually faded. I found myself wanting to return to Sacsayhuman and Qorichacha to better appreciate the more intricate stonework and the great labor that went into their creation.
Questions: What were your reactions to the great Machu Picchu? Did our readings or guided tour influence them?
One reply on “Machu Picchu: Famous but Not Special”
I am very interested in what you wrote. Although I still find Machu Picchu impressive, I found the “touristization” a bit shocking. Of course, I participated in it and I have no regrets. In my case, the role of the tour guide was paradoxical. Although his enthusiasm could be seen in what he told us, this “normalization” of the archaeological site was a discordant note with the advertising apparatus in which we were (are we still?) immersed, where exceptionality is highlighted. (There are other contradictions no less striking, but perhaps I will comment on them in other blogs).