Agencia de viajes, Cusco - Tours Peru Machu Picchu - Sacred Land Adventures

The Machu Picchu Archaeological Heritage

Visitas en su viaje a: The Machu Picchu Archaeological Heritage

Precio Viaje

$ us

Duracion Viaje

Trips Viajes

Tipo Tour

Ubicacion Viaje

The Archaeological Heritage of Machu Picchu, of great importance in the heyday of Tawantisuyo period, was known limitedly during the Spanish conquest and the Viceroyalty, and was looted and extirpate idolatry. While it was generally underestimated and relegated, reduced to a few isolated monuments, it is mentioned in several documents, with various denominations as historic sanctuary of Machu Picchu; in 1870 the American Harry Singer placed first on a map the location of Cerro Machu Picchu and Huayna Picchu refers to as “Punta Huaca del Inca”. The name reveals an unpublished relationship between the Incas and the mountain and even suggests a religious character (one huaca in the Ancient Andes was a sacred place); There are ruins in Machu Picchu; Machu Picchu means Old Mountain in Quechua, the ancient language and others, which are the subject of archaeological and scientific study, as discussed below.

There are signs of its existence in various documents of the nineteenth century on Machu Picchu, and several Peruvian and foreign personalities as consignaban, and even informed about it 2. In 1911 Hiram Bingham, with the support of Yale University and the National Geographic Society It performs what is known as “scientific breakthrough,” which allowed exposing the country and the world the importance of heritage of Machu picchu, clasping a “lost city of the Incas”.

This universal knowledge resignifica start to Machu Picchu in Peru vision on, and is an icon of our national and regional identity. The statement about its meaning and safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Machu Picchu, have gone hand in hand with the vicissitudes of the nation in the twentieth century in a complex process of valorisation, discoveries, conflicting, regional resignifications and nationally concerning the significance of this place taken as sacred Inca city of machu Picchu.

From the moment of his “made known to the world” was imposed based on the predominance manage their tourist values ​​in Peru. During this commissioning universal knowledge occurred very serious separation between the great stone monuments of the City Inca, the classic Inca Trail to Machu Picchu and Inca sites or alternate routes as (choquequirao trek to Machu Picchu, Inca Jungle Trail to Machu Picchu, salkantay trek to Machu Picchu, lares trek to Machu Picchu, Vilcabamba to Machu Picchu trek ausangate, etc.) related in this town high and Amazonian Andean nexus and cultural objects from numerous archaeological pieces, despite being recognized ownership of Peru they were retained by Bingham outside the country, and so far they have not returned. Thus, it has been limited source of research, and evaluations. It has cut a substantial part of the assets, which affects national and regional cultural identity of Peru.

Additionally, for many years the clearance of tropical weeds in the Inca city of Machu Picchu was treated as a matter of public works infrastructure and no archaeological heritage research, which led to dramatic situations such as the burial of archaeological remains as if it were waste and destruction of walls to open facilities to tourist visitors to Machu Picchu.

The famous mountain that looks ahead, and appears in most of the classical views of the Inca site called Waynapicchu or Huaynapicchu or formerly called as Young Mountain.

The Machu Picchu Archaeological Heritage

The formation of the National Archaeological Park of Machu Picchu, located in the area of ​​the district of the same name, in the Cusco region, with an area of ​​32,592 hectares, has been a response to give dominance to cultural management. Since the mid-1930s, the Inca city of Machu Picchu, was attended by the Peruvian government by former staff Departmental Board of Archaeology, almost 20 years after the work begun in 1911 by Hiram Bingham in Peru. It was created by Law 9396, with an area of ​​10,000 hectares, becoming the first protected by state and second in the South American continent, he managed at the time by former Board Department of Archaeology, and subsequently by the House of Cusco Culture area. In 1952 he prepared by Supreme Decree restoration of the city of Machu Picchu.

In 1962 the site museum, waiting for their main pieces, Bingham led the United States, and offered to return to Peru was created. Since 1972 the park goes to the National Institute of Culture. With the formation of Machu Picchu Archaeological Park tours, in the first instance greater interest to the work of conservation and maintenance of the Inca city of Machu Picchu and Wiñaywayna occurred. In the late 70s of last century, the maintenance and conservation of the Inka Trail start. As you can see, at that time the management and conservation of Machu Picchu park was in charge of the agency in charge of managing the cultural heritage, which states that sought to overcome its reduction to tourist use.

Machu Picchu area

In 1968 the Board of Archaeology Department of Cusco area delimited by the name of “Machu Picchu Archaeological Park” on further to 50,555 ha. In 1972, the “Economic and Financial COPESCO Study Plan” to boost socio-economic development of the Cusco-Puno area, in which, among other sub-projects of tourist facilities and Restoration of Monuments are reported was developed. In February 1973, an agreement making studies of subproject of tourist facilities, including PERU and COPESCO ENTUR was signed. the idea of ​​developing a botanical garden representing the flora of Machu Picchu, as a complement to Hotel Complex, constituting both the Machu Picchu Resort was initially conceived. The technical office of COPESCO Plan, to start preliminary studies for this Botanical Garden, found strong pressures affecting the flora and fauna, so the initial design of the project was changed, re orientating towards protecting the natural environment. Based on the tourism aspect raised by COPESCO, the creation of a National Park (protected area) it was formulated as better suited to their needs. This meant for the initial promoters of the idea, the presence of a natural botanical garden in addition to the archaeological attractions of Machu Picchu.

The Machu Picchu Archaeological Heritage

The Resort of Machu Picchu, initially had an area of ​​approximately 50,500 ha. covering the area bounded by the Board of Archaeology Department of Cusco area. It was politically located in the districts of Huayopata, Occobamba and Santa Teresa of the province of the Convention and districts of Machu Picchu and Ollantaytambo in the province of Urubamba; Q’ente the grounds of Santa Rita de Q’ente, Torontoy, Huadquiña, Yanama, Totora, Piscacucho, Mandor, Collpani Grande and San Pedro, while some of these on the date of the proposals, involvement and reversal process comprising the State.

In 1981 the cultural and natural management overlap. On January 8, 1981, by Supreme Decree the Machu Picchu Historical Sanctuary (SHM) is created. Declares the intangibility of the area, established in 32,592 has., A protected natural area of ​​Peru, which overlaps the archaeological park. Interference assume the Ministry of Agriculture of Peru, with competition in protected natural areas, and the Ministry of Education of Peru, with competence, through the INC, cultural and archaeological issues.

On December 9, 1983, the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu is inscribed by UNESCO on the List of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, with registration number 54. After this declaration, the work of conservation and restoration intensify, without But further pressure its value, especially in terms of tourism increases. Are added, then, attempts by the various state agencies related to tourism, to have interference in the affairs of SHM. For most of the decade this overlap seriously affected the management of the area. Various institutions were overlapping in the management of SHM such as DRIT, Ministry of Agriculture, Municipality of tours machu picchu, Municipality of Urubamba, Peru Regional Government, Enturin, among others.

THE MASTER (1998-2003) AND THE MANAGEMENT UNIT PLAN TO tours machu picchu:

Management weaknesses to the substantial increase tourism to Machu Picchu, both to Ciudad Inca and the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu, and the cares of the Government of Peru that then accentuate it even more, led the UNESCO started alert the risks to this World Heritage Site. The Government of Ing. Fujimori then drove the development of SHM Master Plan (1998-2003) and in August 1998 the Management Unit of Machu Picchu is created.

The livelihood of the Master Plan was the conservation of the sanctuary Machu Picchu, but gave further impetus to increased tourist use and private management. Their spines were the biggest tourist use (extension of the hotel, night lighting, 24-hour visits, etc.); increasing access facilities (cableway, etc.); and private management of equipment, including the granting of Inca roads and railway train travel to Machu Picchu. It was intended to transform the SHM in a place of attraction for overall world tourism, with oversaturated to Machu Picchu access, which has been irremediably affect its character as a sacred place and icon of cultural, regional and national socio identity.

This explains the features of the Plan, in its methodology, its final formulation and management unit proposed. The assessments have pointed criticisms as those identified by Martorell about the hasty manner in workshops restrictive and unrepresentative participation. The objectives assigned to the Plan bear no logical consistency with the general and specific objectives and desired outcomes and actions and rules laid down. For more than from the UNESCO declaration of SHM World Heritage the need to integrate the regional territorial and cultural dynamics, including Ollantaytambo, Pisac and Vilcabamba, mentioned the Plan is contained within the limits of SHM, with a serious divorce regional scale, the Vilcanota-Urubamba basin and the Sacred Valley of Urubamba river.

Such a Master Plan for Machu Picchu, contains no consideration of the sacred character of the area. Narrowly assumes its archaeological heritage value. It does not incorporate the cultural and archaeological research. It contains no prevention policies or disaster mitigation. No formulates programs and investment projects bankable and implementation plans for Machu Picchu.

Based on these actual conditions of the Master Plan (1998-2003) the UGM (Management Unit of Machu Picchu) was designed. He had an apparent attempt to avoid overlap, to a mixed cultural and natural management. I was actually designed according to what would be the private management of a global area attraction tourist decontextualized and subject to overage. one UGM was constructed with no real management capacity. the model by which co-participated in imprecisely the two main institutions, the INC and INRENA, with the participation of MITINCI and the regional entity was adopted. Technical Management is responsible for coordinating the actions of both Sub Managements, based on the criteria contained in what would be the Master Plan SHM – Machu Picchu.

The strong social and public response, the cusqueño people and the country, and protests by the international community, prevented the full implementation put the real objectives of that Master Plan. Management SHM then was the sway of the efforts of each institution and its ephemeral possibilities for coordination.

During the early years no clear objectives so that greater importance was given to the natural component, by the INRENA were reached. Regulation and the ROF of the LSU with minority share INC, and already with a marked bias towards relieving tourism at the expense of putting in cultural value was approved. Subsequently a new Technical Manager, committed to the cultural heritage, and closer coordination with the INC is achieved. This facilitates a better flow and exchange of information between INRENA and INC.

But overlapping responsibilities is not resolved. This is seen, for example, in drafting the new regulation of the Inca Trail Network, which unfortunately suffered alterations in its final form by the MINCETUR member of the Steering Committee of the UGM and the new ROF of UGM, where the creation of Alternate Committee, which is composed of representatives of the Regional Government of Cusco, DIRTCETUR, INRENA and INC is approved. The development of the Master Plan in 1998 should resolve these problems, which did not happen. The Master Plan whose term has ended, is organized by superimposing a natural systems approach to protected natural area (ANP), with a focus on value enhancement of cultural property consists of the archaeological heritage, in which the tourist value is prioritized to the detriment of the other values, especially cultural ones.

Travel Program to Machu Picchu

He started a program based on the conversion of debt to Finland to be invested in Machu Picchu. With this resource, would implement the adopted Master Plan. The program culminated without having executed all its resources, pending 4 million. If not executed, although it has had important contributions, he had serious limitations in its actual impact on the management of SHM. Is instructive what their own responsible indicated on their implementation, in its mid-term evaluation.

Regarding the impact made so far (2000) for the travel program to Machu Picchu in social development and protection of natural areas of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu from the levels of budget execution of each component is stressed that having after nearly five years (71% of total running time) “is disappointing,” say its makers, it has run only 31.12% of the resources available, carried out in actions whose impact on the management of the Sanctuary of Machu Picchu still no (studies, plans, regulations) shows. The extreme slowness in the overall progress of the program, by spending explained in administrative matters and investments with no real priority impact. The influence of this guiding primacy began to suffer various actions pushed to the deterioration of heritage with the disorder in the tourist flow, chaos in the town of Aguas Calientes (town of Machu Picchu) in the area of ​​SHM center, and increasing overlap of functions between different sectors of the public administration.

 “I like to combine experiences, no matter whether it is a local or international travel. I like to have everything in a trip: culture, tours, nature, people and a fabulous hotel in Peru “.