1

Machu Picchu Rediscovered:The Royal Estate In The Cloud Forest1

Richard L. Burger And Lucy Salazar-Burger2

The StoryMachu Picchu has been described as one of the world's most mysterious places, not onlybecause of the other worldly atmosphere created by its ruins, slopes, and mists but alsobecause of all the questions we have about it.

Why was it situated on what seems to be a totally irrational location, a narrowridge on heavily forested slopes? What led the Inca to invest large amounts of labor inbuilding one of the most beautiful settlements known anywhere in the world in such aremote place? Why was its spectacular mountaintop site unknown to the Spanishconquerors of the Inca? What role did Machu Picchu play in Inca society?

Since its rediscovery by Hiram Binghamin 1911— knowledge of it before this hadgenerally remained unknown to the worldbeyond local inhabitants—and despite the factthat thousands of visitors have journeyed toMachu Picchu, these mysteries remainunresolved in the mind of the public. Travelers,Peruvian and foreign, continue to receiveimplausible and misleading interpretations andgo on crediting these erroneous notions.Bingham himself held and advanced many ofthese still current misconceptions, which, despitethe evidence, have persisted for three-quarters ofa century.

The ruins of Machu Picchu have inspiredmany myths, but some of these stories are an outgrowth of the limitations of HiramBingham's training and early twentieth century scholarship in general. The redoubtableleader of the 1911 Yale Peruvian Expedition was a professor of Latin American history atYale, a geographer, explorer, and adventurer, but he was no archaeologist. Bingham washighly intuitive but dependent on confusing and often inconsistent Spanish Colonialdocumentary sources. He used these materials to draw a number of conclusions thatarchaeological research and other kinds of investigation contradict. His reliance on thisone type of evidence and his lack of training in the other led Bingham to convincehimself that what he had found was indeed what he had been seeking.

Because of the vagaries of history, Machu Picchu, whatever it may have been, hadremained in a near pristine state between its "loss" in the sixteenth century and itsrecovery in the early twentieth. Consequently the site offers the most complete example

2

of Inca planning known to date. Thanks to Bingham's three expeditions in the 1910s (theexpeditions of 1912 and 1914-15 were cosponsored by Yale and the National GeographicSociety), the Machu Picchu materials at Yale Peabody Museum have offered unlimitedopportunities for new studies, which in many cases have totally refuted his theories. Infact, no other collection of Inca materials outside of Peru is nearly so large or complete orhas so much potential to yield insight. Current studies of these materials continue to shedlight on the governance and administration of the Inca empire, the life of its elite and itsservants, and the nature of Inca society and culture.

More than eighty years after Bingham's first expedition, the mist is at last risingfrom Machu Picchu. While from the perspective of archaeological research this process isjust beginning, the insights it has produced have already transformed our understandingof the site and the empire of which it was a part. It is now time to share those insightswith a wider audience beyond the community of scholars in the field. Likewise, alongwith the stewardship of the unique collections excavated by Bingham eight decades agocomes a responsibility to make those collections more accessible to the public.

It is with these goals in mind that the Peabody Museum has begun the process ofplanning and seeking support for the establishment of a permanent exhibition focusing onMachu Picchu. In its proposed exhibit, the Peabody Museum seeks to demystify MachuPicchu and provide its visitors with a clearer notion of the function of the site, its role inInca history, and the process by which archaeologists have solved the Machu Picchuriddle.

The ExpeditionAdept at attracting both financial backers and publicity, Hiram Bingham, Yale ‘98,eventually migrated out of academia into politics, serving successively as Lieutenant-Governor, Governor, and U.S. Senator for Connecticut. Before that career change,however, Bingham made his name as the amateur archaeologist and intrepid explorerwho both "discovered" Machu Picchu and expounded the abiding—andmistaken—explanations of the site that continue to be accepted.

In 1911, with support from Yale alumni, Bingham mounted an expedition to theCuzco area in southern Peru, the capital of Tawantinsuyu, the great Inca empire. He waslooking for Vilcabamba, the Neo-Inca capital on the forested eastern slopes of the Andes;from this city descendants of the Inca emperors had opposed Spanish conquest for fortyyears. The Spaniards ultimately subdued the resistance and sacked Vilcabamba in 1572;the area around it became depopulated. In fact, the city's location remained lost toscholars.

Bingham hoped to find Vilcabamba by using sixteenth-century historicalreferences. Aided by a road built recently to facilitate the coca leaf trade, Binghamfollowed the Urubamba River into an area particularly favored by the Inca royal family,previously inaccessible to exploration. On July 23, 1911, a local farmer, MelchorArteaga, told him of Inca ruins high on a ridge over the river, hidden by secondary

3

Melchor Arteaga crossing bridge over the Urubamba River. The bridge was washed away a few weekslater, leaving only one log. Photo by Hiram Bingham, July 24, 1911.

growth. The next day, guided by Arteaga and then by the child of a local sharecropperwho had tilled the ruins, Bingham came upon an extraordinarily well-preserved Incawith unusually fine masonry; he returned the following year to clear and excavate thesite.

While the name Machu Picchu did not appear in any of the chronicles with whichBingham was familiar, he nevertheless connected the site to the places described in them.He proposed—incorrectly, as it turns out—that Machu Picchu was the birthplace of theIncas, based on the link that he saw between an unusual three-windowed building at thesite and the myth that the ancestors of the Incas emerged from three caves or windows.Bingham's gifts as a popularizer of his own work had the unfortunate effect ofestablishing this and other misinterpretations as facts in the public consciousness. It washe who described Machu Picchu as a lost city, although, in fact, it was neither a city—itspopulation had been 750 at most—nor was it lost in any meaningful sense.

In an agreement with the Peruvian government, Bingham brought the materialsrecovered at Machu Picchu back with him to Yale, where Peabody Museum curators andstaff have carefully curated and protected them since that time. One of the advantages ofthis arrangement is that they have remained available for reanalysis. As we shall see,new questions and the new techniques that now exist for answering them have enabledmodern scholars to rediscover Machu Picchu.

Rediscovering Machu PicchuContrary to Bingham's speculations, Machu Picchu's origins appear to have been quiterecent, perhaps sometime in the 1450s or '60s, preceding by less than a century Pizarro'sconquest of the Incas' vast Andean empire. The site's origins also appear to have beenconsiderably less spectacular than Bingham's theories would have it in other ways. In1982, we concluded on the basis of the archaeological evidence that Machu Picchu, farfrom being the Inca birthplace, was merely one of a number of personal royal estates builtby Incan emperors at a remove from the imperial capital, Cuzco. In fact, eighty years of

4

The Sacred Plaza and Intihuatana Pyramid of Machu Picchu with the peak of Huayna Picchu in thebackground. Elwood Erdis and a local Peruvian assistant in the foreground. Photo by Hiram Bingham,1912.

scholarship have radically transformed our understanding of the Incan empire and ofMachu Picchu's position in it. These new insights have given a new understanding of theMachu Picchu site, and while these studies have confirmed some of Bingham's intuitions,they substantially refuted others.

Machu Picchu can only be properly understood in the larger context of Incasocial, economic, and political structure. Machu Picchu does not resemble any of the fivetypes of settlement that account for 99% of the sites within Tawantinsuyu between 1450and 1532 A.D., when the Iricas held sway:

•It was only a tiny fraction of the size of Cuzco, the Inca capital, for example,with its magnificent temples, palaces, and fortress.

• Nor was its form or size comparable to Inca provincial administrative capitalslike Pumpu or Huanuco Pampa.

• Its location and strongly religious character set it apart from the administrativeway stations called tambos that the Incas had set up along their 50,000-kilometer(more than 30,000 miles) road network.

• It was far too elaborate to have been either a rural village or one of the plannedgovernment agricultural sites on which the Incas forcibly settled alien ethniccommunities as a punishment or development strategy.

• Its classic Inca architecture and the artifacts recovered from it showed thatMachu Picchu could not have been one of the non-Inca villages that paid tributeto the empire through their labor on public works, state lands, mines, and otherprojects.

However, Machu Picchu does have features consistent with one special type ofsettlement—the royal estate. These—and there was a group of them in the empire—weredefined as being outside of the state administrative system and their support area,belonging instead to specific emperors and their descendants. These kin groups, called

5

panacas or royal corporations, were each headed by an Inca king and supported in luxuryby the lands and retainers acquired by conquest during that king's reign.

These royal retreats were associated with lands that were farmed for the panaca,the produce of which supported the centers and their visitors. There seem to have beenmany of these settlements in a number of areas, but the Urubamba Valley to the north ofCuzco was specially favored, perhaps because of its proximity to the capital and itswarmer climate. Descriptions of Huayna Capac's estate in Yucay, upstream from MachuPicchu, tell of exotic lowland animals and plants being kept for the emperor's pleasure.According to the chroniclers, these centers were used as country estates for relaxationwhen the king or his descendants traveled out of Cuzco. Hunting, entertaining other Incanobles and foreign dignitaries, and other activities are mentioned.

The fine Inca masonry, the small size of the settlement, the absence of featurestied to the economic infrastructure, and other elements led us to conclude in 1982, solelyon the basis of archaeological evidence, that Machu Picchu was probably such a royalestate. This hypothesis appeared to be confirmed in 1986 when John Howland Rowediscovered a 1568 document, written only 36 years after Pizarro's arrival, that mentions asite Picchu, approximately where Machu Picchu is located today; the term Machu thatprecedes Picchu means old and was used by locals to differentiate it from the small hillbehind it called Huayna Picchu, which means young.

The entire area, according to Rowe, apparently belonged to the Inca emperorPachacuti (or Inca Yupanqui). Although the site itself is not mentioned, the documentsimply that the archaeological site of Machu Picchu would have fallen within Pachacuti'sestate. This fact is not surprising because it was under Pachacuti's leadership that the Incaarmies conquered the Urubamba drainage in an effort to protect the Cuzco basin from asneak attack by their principal adversaries, the Chancas.

Although the Machu Picchu area had only been lightly settled before the Incaconquest, it had strategic importance for the neighboring highland groups. It is generallybelieved that Pachacuti only conquered the middle and lower Urubamba after hisconquest of the Chancas, probably sometime in the 1450s; in 1471 Topa Inca took overas emperor. Using these dates as boundaries, it seems reasonable to suggest that MachuPicchu was built sometime between 1450 and 1470, and had only been in use for some 80years when Tawantinsuyu crumbled and the site was abandoned.

The Royal HavenStudies of the structure and the functioning of the royal household indicate that duringclear cold weather of the Andean winter (May to August), members of the Incan royaltyrelaxed, hunted, and entertained foreign dignitaries and other guests in Machu Picchu'swarmer and more pleasant climate. The land around the retreat was terraced and farmedand otherwise made delightful to the rulers, their families, and visiting Inca nobles. Inmodern American terms Machu Picchu, as well as the other royal estates, was a kind ofInca "Camp David," except that the estates did not pass to the king's successor upon hisdeparture from office.

6

Another major difference was in the style ofrulership: the Inca traveled with his court, whichconsisted of hundreds of retainers and advisors:Even after his death, the Inca's mummy was caredfor by hundreds of servants and, as during hislifetime, his body in mummified form was carefullytended, fed, and given a daily change of clothing.3

When the weather grew rainy, the mummy wascarried on a litter to more pleasant climes.

What implications does the identification ofMachu Picchu as a royal estate have for theinterpretation of the archaeological remains? First ofall, the general layout becomes comprehensible froma functional perspective. It would be expected thatthe site would have been used for part of each year,perhaps during May to August, when nightly frostsare common in Cuzco. During this period, a number of royal families linked to the Incawould have resided at the site along with a much larger number of retainers to servethem. In addition, a permanent population of caretakers must have lived at the sitethroughout the year.

Indeed, when we look at the layout of the site, we can immediately identify asector of high-status households. In the classic form, called kancha by the Incathemselves, rectangular buildings used for sleeping, cooking and household storage werearranged within a walled compound around a central patio. Each kancha group has a

single entrance, and would have been used by a singlefamily group. Bingham, aware of Inca custom,correctly identified these as ayllu households.

As one might expect, each house group is unique in itsroom arrangement, decorations, and other features, justas each family differs in size, history, and status.Many of the kanchas have particularly elite features,such as double-jamb entries, cut-stone walls, and otherelegances. Now, after studying these households andcomparing them with those of humble agriculturalistsand their local-level chiefs, we can say withconfidence that these are elite households.

An unusual feature of these elite households isthe bar-sockets that were carved in the entryway toeach compound. These are believed to have been usedto block entry to the compound, either symbolically by

7

holding a cord or wood bar, or, as Bingham suggested, by lashing a door across the space.One elaborate household is found outside this sector, on the other side of the plaza, andBingham may have been correct when he called thisthe King's Group.

It is significant that behind each of these elitehousehold compounds, outside the compound walls,there are several buildings lacking patio area or anykancha-like arrangement. Such buildings at otherInca sites have been identified as houses belonging toyanacona, the Inca term for retainers assigned toparticular elite families. Our current workinghypothesis is that these buildings were occupied byservants associated with the adjacent households.

When all of the possible domestic dwellingsare counted, there are less than 150 such buildingswithin the site. Even if they were all residential infunction and all were occupied, it is difficult to arguefor a maximum population at any time in excess of750 people, and it is likely that the actual numberwas closer to 500 people, most of whom wereretainers. This number of course does not include the inhabitants of the land surroundingMachu Picchu whose farmers provided food for the people living there. However, there isno evidence within the city of houses of farmers, nor did Bingham's extensiveexcavations recover the types of stone tools used by agriculturalists.

Indeed, if we set aside domestic architecture used by the elite and their servants,the most common features at Machu Picchu are those involved in the various religiouscults that were central to elite life. Like most conquerors, the Incas claimed to be morallyand theologically superior to the people they conquered, and they even claimed that theirdeities—Inti the sun and Wiracocha the creator—had instructed them to go forthand subdue the nations to their north, south, east and west. Their claim to legitimacy wasclosely tied to their ideology of being descended from the sun and having special links tothe cosmos and its manipulation. Inca rituals required a core of specialists and involvedcomplex astronomical observations and carefully specified sequences of prayer andsacrifice.

Inca sites were carefully brought into alignment with mountain peaks andconstellations that were the foci of myriad supernatural forces. Thus it is in no waysurprising that an elite estate such as Machu Picchu would feature numerous places forsuch solar observations—the windows of the torreon, an unusual building with curvedwalls and fine stonework—or for making offerings—the principal temple—or for storingthe bodies of ancestors—the cave beneath the torreon. It is interesting, however, that inaddition to such public areas of worship and ceremony on the higher northwest sector ofthe site, there are also small family shrines within each of the elite compounds, wheremore intimate family rituals could be carried out.

8

Demystifying Machu PicchuThe scholarship of the last decade has convincingly disproved Bingham's dualidentifications of Machu Picchu as either the last Inca capital (that is, Vilcabamba) or themythic Inca birthplace (that is, Tambotoco). But how about Bingham's rather lurid claimthat the so-called Virgins of the Sun occupied Machu Picchu? This theory, notparticularly consistent with his other two theories, derived largely from G. F. Eaton's4

conclusion that the 143 skeletons recovered in the Machu Picchu burials had almost allbeen women, with a few "effeminate men."

These burials have been discovered mainly inwalled-up crevices beneath or adjacent to the largeboulders strewn along the edges of the site. Binghamwas familiar with the Inca custom of selecting younggirls at the age of ten or so, and assigning them tostate-run female institutions where they were trainedand educated to become priestesses, sacrificialvictims, or, in most cases, to be kept as secondarywives of Inca emperors or to be distributed as a signof favor to successful generals, administrators, orallies. The houses or acllawasi where these celibatewomen lived were compared to nunneries by theSpaniards, and they were the focus of many Spanishaccounts.

Understandably, Eaton's findings brought thisgroup to Bingham's mind. However, long afterBingham's pioneering work a documented accllawasi was excavated by Craig Morris atthe site of Huanuco Pampa, an Inca city in the Central Andes. Morris found that it had adistinctive barracks-like form in which a large compound with a single entrance enclosesa densely packed set of rooms. When excavated, these features yield high numbers ofspindle whorls, hair pins, or other artifacts associated with females. But no sucharchitectural arrangement exists at Machu Picchu. Nor did Bingham encounter largenumbers of weaving implements or other characteristically female-related artifacts in anyparticular sector. Nor would a royal estate, such as Machu Picchu is now understood tohave been, be a likely location for an acllawasi.

How then can we explain Eaton's findings? The skeletal materials, like the otherMachu Picchu artifacts brought back by Bingham from Machu Picchu to Yale andcarefully curated and protected since then, have undergone reanalysis in recent years intwo independent osteological studies carried out at the Yale Peabody Museum.5 Bothstudies concluded that there were roughly the same number of males as femalesrepresented and, moreover, that many of the females were adult females who had givenbirth. Quite simply, Bingham's theory of the Virgins of the Sun was an attempt to explaina nonexistent anomaly in the evidence.

9

The burials of Inca men and women do, however, shed light on life in MachuPicchu. Like modern vacation homes, royal estates were not the preferred burial groundsof the elite. Inca royalty who died suddenly while visiting Machu Picchu would havebeen borne back on litters (as they had been brought there) for mummification or burialin Cuzco, the imperial capital. One would expect only retainers to be interred at a placelike Machu Picchu.

This expectation accords well with the archaeological evidence. First of all, littleenergy was expended in preparation of the burial chamber which, in most cases, was justan unmodified natural space with a few rocks piled around the body to keep wild animalsout. Secondly, most of the goods left with those found buried at Machu Picchu weremodest at best. Since the dead were believed to use the items interred with them in theirjourney to the next world, even low-ranking officials—burials of the lowest Incabureaucrat (called curaka pachaka), who had charge of 100 taxpayers, are known fromexcavation in Ica—were interred with precious metal cups, more than a dozen pieces ofpottery and other offerings. The burials at Machu Picchu, in contrast, usually had only afew modest offerings with the body, rarely more than four or six pots, and even thesewere frequently vessels that had been repaired during the life of the deceased. On burialgoods alone we could infer that the Machu Picchu dead were people of relatively lowstatus.

Similarly, many of these skeletons bear the traces of broken bones and bad backsthat mark common working folk/as one would expect from retainers. At the same time,the retainers of the Inca elite are known to have been drawn from throughout theprovinces; for example, the royal estate upstream from Machu Picchu at Yucay was saidto have had retainers brought from Ecuador. The nonlocal origin and heterogeneity of theretainer population also fits well with the burial sample. For example, there are severaltypes of cranial deformation represented, including types that are not typical of the Cuzcoregion. Moreover, a carbon-isotope study of the skeletal remains shows that while all ofthe tested individuals had corn as their staple, there was much more variation in theamount of maize than has ever been encountered in a single homogeneous population.The likely explanation of this is that some of the individuals had been brought from highaltitude areas where maize by necessity was consumed at a somewhat lower level.

The identification of the Machu Picchu burials as primarily of servants helps toexplain why Bingham failed to encounter large quantities of precious metal objects, sincethese would have been proscribed for most retainers. Ironically, Bingham's misreading ofMachu Picchu and its importance led some Cuzco scholars and journalists to expect thekinds of rich grave goods known from other Inca sites. When Bingham failed to producethem, he was charged with having stolen all of the gold and silver items for personal gain,accusations that, in part, eventually led him to abandon Peruvian archaeology.

Why Machu Picchu Was "Lost"?Machu Picchu's location is indeed spectacular, and it was probably for this reason that itwas selected. Whether or not it was couched in terms of sacred geography or

10

cosmological determinism, the Incas appreciated the aesthetic qualities of highlandlandscapes as much as or more than modern-day archaeologists and travelers do;their fascination with the site's location may have shared many features with our own.Yet the choice of this spot had disadvantages as well as advantages. For one thing, thesite was located 160 kilometers from Cuzco in a lightly settled region; as such, it wasparticularly vulnerable to surprise attacks either from rebellious locals or other highlandgroups like the Chanca or unconquered jungle groups downstream. With little prospect ofreinforcements in the immediate area, the elite staying at Machu Picchu would have hadto be concerned about security even during a short sojourn at the site.

This concern is reflected in Machu Picchu's architecture. The building atopHuayna Picchu was positioned to enable detection of advancing armies far in advance oftheir arrival. The major road leading to Machu Picchu features a drawbridge spanning achasm from which attendants could remove the requisite logs in case of a threat. The siteitself is inaccessible from three sides because of the steep slopes; the fourth side isprotected by a deep dry moat, which has since been largely filled in by eroding soil.Beyond the stone-lined trench are two high stone walls. There is a single entrance into theinner city and this could have been lashed and defended even if the moat and the firstwall were breached. As many scholars have noted, while Machu Picchu is not laid out asa military installation, it is undeniable that, in contrast to many Inca sites, special designfeatures made the site defensible in case of an attack.

As this discussion suggests, the relationship between the elite and supportpopulations in this situation may have been perceived as sensitive, and this tension can beseen reflected in the way hospitality was provided to these groups. Inca rule waspremised on the myth of royal generosity; Inca bureaucrats spent much of their timewining and dining the taxpayers at state centers, providing them with corn beer, cocaleaves, and music. Studies at Huanuco Pampa and other Inca administrative centers havedemonstrated that the structures most commonly found around the main open plaza areasare long hallways (sometimes called kallankas by archaeologists) that were used for thisritual feasting. What identifies these kallankas are their many doorways and theThe largest kallanka at Machu Picchu. The ruins of the eight-door structure are in the foreground, withthe watchman’s hut and funerary rock in the center distance and the city of Machu Picchu below to the left.

large numbers of broken beer containers found surrounding them.

11

In Machu Picchu, such kallankas are not found in the plaza area. Instead, smallerversions of the kallankas are associated with each of the elite compounds, as if the royalfamilies created facilities only to entertain each other, clearly excluding the largeragricultural population that must have inhabited the countryside. There is, however, onelarge kallanka in the Machu Picchu complex and it is located outside of the city walls,above the agricultural ten-aces about 120 meters to the south. Although small by Incastandards, this eight-door kallanka is twice the size of any inside the city; it would havebeen perfect for entertaining a large group of farmers without allowing them inside thetown walls. In front of the kallanka is an open plaza space with a carved stone, probablyused for religious rituals on these occasions.

The reason for Machu Picchu's abandonment is easy to understand. It was never aself-sufficient center with an economic rationale. Its very existence was a luxury madepossible by the surplus labor and goods at the disposal of the Inca elite. WhenTawantinsuyu was conquered the socioeconomic system underlying it collapsed androyal estates like Machu Picchu lost both the reason and the resources to continue tofunction. Some royal estates closer to Cuzco such as Yucay or Pisac were transformedinto simple rural villages and continued to survive as part of the emerging colonialeconomy. But others, like Machu Picchu, were too far from the main road system andurban markets to make continued utilization feasible; by the time the farmers finallyabandoned the area the Inca elite and their retainers had long since fled, taking with themwhatever portable objects were of value.

The reason Machu Picchu does not appear in any of the chronicles is notparticularly mysterious either. Historical records of that time were the work of Spanishwriters, who wrote mainly of those settlements perceived as being of special economic ormilitary importance. Royal estates, of which Machu Picchu was but one of many, hadlittle reason to attract their attention, particularly if like Machu Picchu they had beenabandoned before large numbers of Spaniards had entered the region. Other impressiveroyal estates, such as Pisac, are similarly ignored by the chronicles, even though theywere closer to Cuzco and continued to be used in colonial times.

Mysterious or not, the "loss" to memory of Machu Picchu and the other royalestates until quite recently limited our understanding of the social and political life of theIncan empire. Misinterpretations notwithstanding, Yale's Hiram Bingham made aninestimable contribution to our knowledge of Peru before the conquests. Resourcespermitting, within a very few years, the Peabody Museum will offer its visitors anopportunity to appreciate Bingham's legacy to modern archaeological scholarship and theremarkable culture of which Machu Picchu was an expression. 1 Originally published in Discovery 24(2):20-25 1993. For purposes of increased clarity, severalillustrations have been added to this online version.

2 Richard L. Burger is (1993) Professor and Chairman of the Yale Department of Anthropology andCurator of Anthropology at the Yale Peabody Museum. Lucy Salazar-Burger is a Curatorial Affiliate of theMuseum.

12

3 Included here are four drwings from the book, El Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno by FelipeGuman Poma de Ayala, a member of the non-Inca native elite. He live at the end of the sixteenth centuryand the beginning of the seventeenth.

4 George F. Eaton (1872-1949) was Curator of Osteology (1902-20) at the Peabody Museum of NaturalHistory and a member of the 1012 Yale Expedition to Peru.

5 2002 Update – A third and definitive reanalysis of the Machu Picchu skeletal material was performed in2000 by Dr. John Verano, a noted expert on the subject of Andean human osteology from TulaneUniversity. His analysis, although identifying slightly more females than males among the Machu Picchuburials (1.68::1), generally confirmed the results of the these two earlier analyses in rejecting Eaton’sconclusion, which had said that there were almost four times the number of female as males among theMachu Picchu burials.