Hello everyone,
I can’t believe that this is already my third experience blog, this time from Pisac! It’s incredible how quickly this trip has been going by. Unfortunately, my memory does not always serve me well, but I’ll do my best to sum up the days I can remember.
Thursday was the day we left Cusco. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to leave town until six, when we had to leave our hotel rooms at ten. It wasn’t until three-ish that Anja and I decided to embark on a trek to some ruins with a name I can’t recall. It was a half-hour walk, and when we saw this on Google Maps it did not occur to me that that walk would go upwards. Ultimately, the ruins we saw were just a bit past Sacsayhuaman. Just before them, there was what appeared to be a vicuña sanctuary with a little gift shop. We saw the adorable vicuñas, which gave me much joy, and more than made up for the long walk up. I ended up purchasing a pair of socks (as all money would go to keep the vicuña sanctuary running, and they’re so cute I couldn’t pass it up)
The next day, when we were finally in Pisac, our group went uphill again to see some ruins (this time by car). It never would have occurred to me that this site could have been largely a recreation, until Daniel brought up differences in some of the stones we saw, compared to what we knew to be “officially” Incan. It amazed me that these kinds of things are never mentioned when we visit sites – how come there aren’t any signs explaining re-buildings? I am convinced sites choose to fool their visitors into believing that everything is exactly untouched as the Incas left it, but that isn’t the case. (Although, let’s be honest: they would have fooled me). To know that it is very possible that much of this site has been rebuilt has made me linger on the concept of value. Is an archeological site inherently less valuable because much of it has been recreated? Or would it have been less valuable if it had been left untouched, but with very little to show for it?
Saturday and Sunday have mostly involved wandering around Pisac for me. It was nice to take these days to relax, and also explore somewhere new! I’m very excited to see where the rest of our time in Pisac takes me, particularly when it comes to visiting the school tomorrow.
See you soon!
3 replies on “Experience Blog 3: Pisac, Ruins and Value”
“Is an archeological site inherently less valuable because much of it has been recreated? Or would it have been less valuable if it had been left untouched, but with very little to show for it?” Yasmin, you have gotten to the heart of the matter with your questions. Furthermore, you have framed them in a precise problem, that of value. I lack the knowledge and even the experience to respond to the great challenge you leave us on your blog. But I’ll leave this comment to further complicate things: is the cover-up of “originality” innocent?
Hi Yasmin! Thank you for sharing your experiences. I also found myself wondering if the restoration of archeological sites somehow made the experience less authentic. Daniel brings up a good question about the intentions behind such actions. The answer is obviously complicated but it do think that one of the reasons that we should do this would be to ‘accurately’ represent what once was in order to generate continued interest and keep past histories alive.
excited to see how u cover this in your presentation tn! i especially wonder if the recreation of sites can serve as perhaps a different sort of value, is there potential to repurpose sites as something other than a delicate artifact, can they be inhabited without being colonized upon? lovely post as always 🙂