Combining the Old with the New: Thoughts on Restoration of Ruins

As we've visited ancient ruins over the course of the past few weeks—from Chinchero to Ollantaytambo and even to Machu Picchu—there seems to be a bit of an intrusive presence among the ancient walls: construction workers restoring parts of the ruins. As I was exploring the sites, and even afterward, I grappled with the purpose of restoration and whether it is affecting public and Peruvian perception of these sites and their histories. After thinking about it, I've come up with three main theories that I've thought about to explain these restoration efforts:

Theory 1: Restoration allows Peruvians and tourists to remember the past history of the region and its accomplishments—it allows individuals to continue to visit and learn while maintaining the integrity of the site.

This is the most optimistic of the potential reasons that I've thought of. Of course, restoration has a decent amount of value because it allows individuals to continue visiting important historical sites without worrying that they will be destroyed forever and can therefore no longer serve as very obvious testaments to the level of innovation that existed in ancient civilizations.

So, by this theory, restoration provides a happy medium that maintains the integrity of the ruins and flow of people that can learn about the importance of those ruins—both in the ancient and the modern. One could argue that the idea of combining new and old is still questionable because visitors aren't looking exclusively at the achievements of the Incas, but they are nevertheless for the most part Incan achievements and the level of these achievements is not severely undermined by restoration efforts—especially given that these efforts attempt to emulate the ancient style as much as possible.

Theory 2: Restoration is a ploy to attract more tourism to the region because individuals would prefer to see fuller/more completed ruins—it's a sort of "Disneyfication."

This theory is the polar opposite of the first theory and is, in fact, a very negative explanation for restoration attempts. However, I know that others have thought along similar lines because the term "Disneyfication" actually appeared in an article about restoration attempts at Machu Picchu. Essentially, what this means is that the government does not care very much about the ruins and the past innovations that they represent but rather care more about how much revenue they can bring in from tourism. By this logic, they are only making the ruins look as good as possible in order to achieve this goal of more tourism and therefore more revenue.

The problem with this is that increased traffic will result in increased degradation of the ruins and that visiting an ancient site just for the photo opportunity is kind of missing the importance of learning from history—especially from an ancient culture that contributes so strongly to many modern aspects of Peruvian culture, especially here in Cuzco. Why do I think that there may be increased degradation with this motivation for restoration but not the previous one? (After all, both have the same end goal of restoring elements of the ruins) I think it's a matter of quantity—for instance, I know that restoration plans at Machu Picchu are intended to open up at least five new areas of Machu Picchu to the public when a great deal of it is already available, and I don't think anybody suffers from not being able to see more. This seems more like a way to bring in more tourists in a Disney World fashion than actual care about the preservation of the ruins and display of the culture. Plus, my opinion of Aguas Calientes didn't help. If the stop right before Machu Picchu is a tourist trap that gave me strong Animal World or overpriced waterpark vibes, who's to say that something similar won't happen to the perception of one of the New Seven Wonders of the World?

(As a side note, there's also talk about building an entire airport near Machu Picchu to make it easier for tourists to get there, so how much does the government care, really, if they're willing to build a whole international airport near the ruins to increase tourism?)

Theory 3: Restoration is intended to allow Peruvians and tourists to remember the past history of the region but by attracting more tourism with the aesthetically prettier site, it ends up acting as a sort of "Disneyfication" if we're not careful.

This last option fuses the first two theories into a bit of a cautious compromise. As I've mentioned, I think there's a lot of value in restoration because it allows individuals to continue to come and experience a culture that simply cannot be conveyed through photos or videos alone. At the same time, too much of it or restoration with the wrong intentions can prove damaging. I think it's already having some of these effects—for instance, I really did feel like I was at Disney World as I waited 30 minutes to get out of Machu Picchu among a crowd of tourists who weren't even really looking around anymore. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer as to how we can bring back the sentiment that Machu Picchu is an amazing, sacred wonder that demonstrates the peak of a civilization whose culture continues to permeate modern Peru to hundreds upon hundreds of individuals who make the journey for the photo-op and not for the story and mystery behind it all.

Whichever theory is correct, and whatever the solution to all of this may be, I hope that there is, in fact, a solution. After experiencing the awe-inspiring beauty of all of these sites in person, I would hate for something like Machu Picchu to turn into nothing more than a theme-park-like attraction rather than the representation of history, culture, and innovation that it is. The same goes for places like Chinchero and Ollantaytambo.