Machu Pichu in (my) perspective

Machu Pichu was the last great monument we saw during our trip. A perfect closure to our one year trip - the most famous monument in South America and some of the most famous ruins in the world (Machu Picchu has been voted one of the New Seven Wonders of the World). So after a four day hike we were quite excited to finally see Machu Pichu.

Machu Picchu lies at 2450 meters above sea level, which is lower than Cusco. Although it sits low between two mountains, it is higher than Urubamba River and is often covered with clouds. This is probably the reason why the Spaniards never found it and it remained undisturbed until its "scientific rediscovery" in 1911. And since then Machu Pichu has appeared on the radar of tourist maps from all over the world, and it has been acclaimed as the finest example of the impressive achievement of pre-Colombian cultures.

I have to admit, Machu Pichu has to be one of the most beautifully situated ruins I have ever seen. From above, it looks as if it was carved directly in the mountain, an integral part of the landscape.

Once we started walking between the buildings, we also appreciated the size of the site. Surprisingly we spent a full 9 hours in the ruins and had to leave only because we had to catch a train back to Cusco. It was great walking between the buildings, exploring the site’s hidden corners, and imaging how the place might have been 600 years ago when it was thriving.

Nevertheless, I should put things in perspective. Ever since I started reading about South America, I have had the impression that the Incas were the best masons and that Machu Pichu was the finest display of their art.

It is also worth noting that I had visited a number of Inca ruins in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia and Peru. I loved seeing them but nonetheless, Inca ruins did not appear to be particularly advanced technically or artistically original. After having visited Tiwanaku (see my earlier post), I expected even more sophisticated stonework in Machu Pichu. After all, the Incas were supposed to have brought to perfection the techniques inherited from older cultures. And lets not forget that Tiwanaku was constructed around 700ad (or possibly much earlier). So Machu Pichu was created many centuries after the cities of Egypt, Mesopotamia, or even ancient Greece and Rome. And, contrary to site of Tiwanaku, it has never been touched by the Conquistadors.

Well, as I said, urban planning in Machu Pichu is truly impressive, mostly because it is in total harmony with the surrounding environment. When it comes to Inca masonry, however, I must admit that I was slightly disappointed.

Inca architecture is known for stones carved and fitted so perfectly that they would hold in a wall without any cement. One can see examples of this technique in Machu Pichu. I was disappointed to see that only a handful of buildings are constructed using this method. The vast majority of city constructions are just ordinary buildings with fairly irregular stones held together by mud. Not quite what I had expected after reading about the architectural masterpiece of Machu Pichu.

Moreover, even the buildings proclaimed to be the most sophisticated constructions in Machu Pichu, such as the temple of the sun, were quite underwhelming if not for the walls made of finely fitted stones and the marriage of the structure with the environment. There are no carvings on the stones, no statues, no other form of artistic expression that I had expected from the supposed masters of masonry in the pre-Columbian world.

Maybe I was expecting too much. Maybe the Incas were just more warriors and administrators than artists. And maybe it is unfair to compare different developments of different cultures in different times, using the same aesthetical standards. Or maybe Machu Pichu is just magical for some and not so magical for others.

Well, for myself, I spent a fantastic day on the site of Machu Pichu and I definitely think it is a must-see for anybody interested in pre-Columbian cultures. But I would hardly call Machu Pichu one of the New Seven Wonders of the world. And with regards to artistic values (or the degree of mystery involved, for that matter), I will take the half-destroyed Tiwanaku site over Machu Pichu any time. Tiwanaku is not half as picturesque as Machu Pichu but, in my opinion, it displays a degree of achievement in stone carving and in the scale of its masonry that exceeds that of Machu Pichu.

P.S. I am sorry if I offended the feelings of Machu Pichu lovers. Feel free to disagree!