The “most known” lost city of the Incas Or how to preserve Choquequirao, its “authentic” sacred sister

8/8/2019 The most known lost city of the Incas Or how to preserve Choquequirao, its authentic sacred sister

1/10

MACHU PICCHU The most known lost city of the Incas

Or how to preserve Choquequirao, its authentic sacred sisterAlexandra Arellano

University of Ottawa

[email protected]

Introduction

The Inca citadel of Machu Picchu in Peru is known by the world as an icon of the ancientcivilizations of the Americas. Since being declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in1983, the archaeological complex is now a finalist to become one of the new SevenWonders of the World (www.newsevenwonders.com). The process of global recognitionof the sites outstanding values has contributed to the transforming the so-called lostcity into the most important tourist destination of Peru and the best known secret ofthe Inca civilization (Arellano 2004). Located in an ecologically and geologically fragilearea of the Andean mountains, the sanctuary now receives nearly 700,000 visitors a year;a significant increase from an annual rate of 120 000 visitors in 1983 (BADATUR 2007).

The 1990s tourism boom led to a fast development of its hosting infrastructures whereseemingly insurmountable environmental and logistical problems are constantlyidentified but rarely effectively resolved. Its unplanned host town Aguas Caliente issimilarly developing dramatically and chaotically; not only does this ruin the landscapeof the site and its surroundings, but at the same time it endangers the sites natural settingand biodiversity. This supposed protected area is therefore constantly confronted withcontradictory movements of commercialization, exploitation and touristification(Lanfant 1994) from one side, and conservation, sustainability and biodiversity safeguardfrom the other (Arellano 2004). This paradox also contains the very notion of authenticityby which the so called lost city has become an object of mass tourism. In fact, how canthe lost city of the Incas be kept authentic, when every day tourists are queuing up

to take the Inca trail to reach the sanctuary, when buses and trains, people and urbandevelopments increasingly threaten the preservation of the site and its very spirit ofsacred?

Interestingly, a recently re-discovered and magnificent 500-year old Incasettlement shares many of the attributes of Machu Picchu. Known as Choquequirao orcrib of gold, this emerging ecotourism destination is being branded as an unmappedcitadel situated in one of the least explored areas on Earth at 3,100 meters above sealevel. Located in the Andes of Cuzco, some 205 km from the regional capital of Cuzco,Choquequirao is currently only accessible by foot, requiring visitors to undertake 30 kmof advanced and strenuous mountain hiking from the closest village. In 2003, this so-called other Machu Picchu or Machu Picchus sacred sister was declared a national

protected area; the initial stages of a Master Plan of Development are currently beingimplemented (Plan Copesco National). Due to its extraordinary beautiful natural setting,its untouched state and hence authenticity, Choquequirao is rapidly becoming a sought-after destination for world travellers. The tourism impacts and concomitantenvironmental risks are escalating at a more rapid pace than the development of highlycomplex tourism/park planning competencies and resources. Choquequirao is today inthe same situation that Machu Picchu was approximately 30 years ago when the siteshosting infrastructures, such as transportation, were beginning to be developed, and the
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

newly-urbanised site underwent a joint process of promotion and conservation. In otherwords, Choquequirao is in many ways Machu Picchus original replica; currentlyuntouched, uncontaminated and unspoiled by mass tourism. The site, having beenprotected by a rich biodiversity for many centuries, now presents a challenge for nationaland regional authorities as they not only have to preserve its natural, archaeological and

environmental aspects, they also have to protect its spirit and hence its authenticity.As part of an ongoing research project aimed at assessing the sustainabledevelopment of the newly-discovered Inca complex, this article reflects preliminaryconsiderations reviewing the notion and perceptions of authenticity by using theexample of Machu Picchu as the anti-model of sustainable development forChoquequirao. Initially, I discuss the relationship between heritage and authenticitywithin current sociological debates. Seen as negotiable, authenticity will be examinedfrom the perspective of who has the authority to authenticate, and through whichcriteria. By reviewing the criteria of authenticity developed by UNESCO for propertiesto attain the status of a World Heritage Site, I discuss and review the managementproblems at Machu Picchu that have been and still are threatening its authenticity. As

an anti-model for the development of Choquequirao, I argue that the local communityparticipation or the social principle of the three-dimensional fundaments ofsustainable development (social, economic and environment) has been consistentlyneglected. After examining the management of Machu Picchus conservation system andthe many problematic issues arising from its questionable implementation, I furthersuggest that authentication criteria should be used to reinforce the communityparticipation principle in a renewed definition of sustainable authenticity.

Towards the definition of a sustainable authenticityMachu Picchu is one of those things you cant miss, even if you hate crowds and band

wagons. It is undoubtedly gorgeous and profound. However, all that lost city stuff

sounds like a cheap clich these days. What is so lost about a shiny train, a bunch of new

coaches, international cuisine, inflated tourist trap prices, tactical formations of retiredJapanese and millions of North-American kids screaming for mommy? Machu Picchu is

a Very Much Found City of the Inca. Peru is the land of adventure and this is why I came

here. Yes, I enjoyed Machu Picchu, it was beautiful. But it was no adventure. Then I

heard of Choquequirao. And I smelled fish. another city nearby, bigger than Machu

Picchu? You mean a proper lost city where no-one goes, close to Cuzco? Whats wrong

with it? Is it just a bunch of rocks? Or are you giving me another lost city pitch? Too

good to be true. I mean, its not that unknown a few tour shops in Cuzco advertise it,

yet it falls on deaf ears. I went, I saw, I surrendered. It was the best decision of my Peru

trip. Choquequirao was stunning. And it was true. The reason I had it all to myself?

There is no luxury train! I know there are thousands who dream of a genuinely lost Inca

city they can enjoy in solitude and serenity (Welsh, 2002).

This quote is representative of how visitors regard Machu Picchu nowadays: as acontaminated power place that has lost its energy and spirit of sacredness. It alsoreflects an extensive debate and ongoing concern that is inherent in the relationshipbetween heritage and authenticity. Indeed, this rapport has been explored through variousperspectives such as: historical veracity and political agendas (like Hobsbawnsnationalistic invented traditions, 1983); heritage as becoming the very object of anindustry (Hewison 1987; Wright 1987); and, more specifically linked to tourism, through


3/10

a contaminated and staged authenticity (MacCannell 1992, 1999, 2001; Cohen 1988).Accordingly, when commerce and culture become linked and interdependent through thedevelopment of tourism, a heritage place becomes the bearer of an authenticity imposedby the tourist gaze (Urry 2002) and the tourist quest for the exotic (MacCannel 1976).In other words, the commodification is said to be at the forefront of the production of

new cultural forms that are perceived as inauthentic.Several accounts of tourism and heritage are based on these true / false modernistcategorisations that rely on the existence of a measurable truth. The analysis of anauthentic untouched place, compared to a commodified one, implies the consensualexistence of a universal measure of authenticity. However, postmodernist argumentsshow that in a contemporary, pluralistic world, the universal notion of authenticity canno longer serve a useful purpose as an analytical category (Meethan 2001: 111), sincethere are no uncontested systems of reality (Bauman 1987: 129) and no fixed genderrole identity (Beck 1994). This also refers to Baudrillards concept of hyperreality (1988),where the real cannot be distinguished from the virtual, and where there are no moreoriginals but only simulation and repetition. Some authors have argued that tourists can

also accept pastiche and kitsch as authentic (Urry 2002). Indeed, whilst for some theauthentic Machu Picchu experience involves trekking the Inca Trail for three dayscamping en-route, other tourists using the luxury train to get to Machu Picchu and stay inthe four star hotel and can similarly perceive their experience as authentic. Accordingly,the interpretation, preservation and touristification of heritage is seen as more real thanthe original. From this position, there is no difference between the sign and the real,where the sign has even priority over the real. As McCrone et al. put it, heritage is amatter of signs; authenticity and originality are matters of technique, not reality(McCrone et al 1995: 45). Therefore, when we talk about the conservation and revival ofheritage it means to represent it (Rojek 1993).

These postmodern assumptions point out that there are no precise parameterswithin which to measure reality. If there is no more original or graspable reality, how canwe analyse tourism developments and heritage interpretation without falling intosimplistic (modernist) categorisations of true/false or vulgar relativism? In order totranscend the binary dichotomy legislating what is authentic and what is not, it ispertinent to explore how authenticities are authenticated, defined, experienced orsimply negotiated by different actors, organizations, managements etc. As Brunerpoints out, the issue of authenticity merges into the notion of authority (Bruner 1994:401). In other words, authenticity is seen here as a constructed value that requires theconsideration of the social and material context in which it is located (Meethan 2001:95).

An entity that has assumed the authority of authorising sites of interest asauthentic is UNESCO. The world heritagisation or the World Heritage Centre listingof sites of outstanding value is indeed a global endorsement and the most universalinternational legal instrument that establishes a worldwide recognition and concern forconservation (Arellano 2004: 68). Interestingly the World Heritage Centre has anestablished list of criteria that test the authenticity of various cultural properties fortheir inclusion in the World Heritage List (UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, 2005. Asexpressed in Annex (4) which restates the original Nara document on integrity and/orauthenticity of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage


4/10

Convention (paragraphs 79-95), the attributes of authenticity are based on thedemonstration of the uniqueness of a site, its measurable standings for historical veracity,and the assurance of adequate management from the cultural communities involved. Asexpressed in the document,

It is important to underline a fundamental principle of UNESCO, to the effect that thecultural heritage of each is the cultural heritage of all. Responsibility for cultural heritageand the management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that hasgenerated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it. However, in addition to theseresponsibilities, adherence to the international charters and conventions developed forconservation of cultural heritage also obliges consideration of the principles andresponsibilities flowing from them.Balancing their own requirements with those of othercultural communities is, for each community, highly desirable, provided achieving thisbalance does not undermine their fundamental cultural values (UNESCO, World HeritageCentre, 2005: 92).

It is interesting to explore the reference to the local community. For example, what are

the major issues and controversial projects that are threatening the criteria of authenticityof the Sanctuary at Machu Picchu and that are consequently compromising its spirit ofplace? In the next section I present and discuss some of the general and recent mostproblematic management issues at Machu Picchu stressing on the resulting so-calledsocial conflict.

Machu Picchu, management and inauthenticity

Machu Picchu is located in the province of Cuzco in the middle of the Andeanmountains at an altitude of 2,430 meters. More than being a well preservedarchaeological Inca urban complex, the site is located in an extraordinarily beautifulnatural setting of the tropical mountain forest containing a rich diversity of flora and

fauna (Word Heritage Centre). Since the world became responsible for MachuPicchus preservation and conservation in 1983, a complex array of regional, national andinternational agencies have created a National Park system through a legal frameworkwhich incorporates Master Plans of Development, international conventions, shared andassumed responsibilities, and the often-competing institutional agendas of the manydifferent agencies involved. Subsequently, the Sanctuary is currently managed in asomewhat haphazard and often chaotic manner through a complex set of relationshipsbetween these agencies. The tensions between the various stakeholders is often mediatedby international organizations such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS) and UNESCO, who have, on many different occasions, had to warn bothlocal park managers and regional governmental bodies that the Inca archaeological

complex and its natural setting is at risk of being placed on a list of endangered sitesunless remedial action was taken. The most-recent Annual State of Conservation ofProperties contained on the World Heritage List (2005) identified and summarized themain threats to Machu Picchu:

Delays in the revision of the Master Plan, including detailed yearly operational plans,supported by adequate budget provisions; No evaluation of transport options, includinggeological studies and the development of a study on the impacts of buses on landslides;Lack of studies related to the carrying capacity of the Citadel and Camino Inca; Delays in


5/10

the development of a Public Use Plan; Delays in implementation of the urban planningand control measures for Aguas Calientes; Lack of proper management of the site; Lack

of risk Management Plans related to natural disasters (UNESCO, 2005: 44).

Despite such pressing issues on preservation, the underlying problem is notsimply one of park management; it is closely intertwined with the lack of an appropriatemanagement regime capable of providing adequate expertise in sustainable tourism.Despite being seen as obvious partners, the relationship between heritage sitemanagement and tourism developments in many parts of the world is far fromharmonious and has consistently been neglected by park managers (Eagles 1997). In fact,until recently, both mainstream tourism industry and the park managementestablishment have had a blind spot for the emerging nature-based tourism phenomenon(Eagles 1997: 5). Since the 1990s, rapid increases in tourism in heritage-based areas haverevealed management deficiencies and exposed a lack of expertise among park managers.The relationship between these two forces tourism and heritage management isparticularly problematic in less developed countries (Mowforth and Munt 2003). Thecomplexity of tourism management and visitor impact in Peru is often underestimated,even more so as Peru is a country where political instability and policies affecting thenational economy and land tenure can easily destabilize any attempt to assuresustainability. The heritage management of Machu Picchu has become a matter oftourism managementthat must emphasise the three principles of sustainability endorsedby global agencies such as the World Tourism Organization and its campaign on tourismfor poverty alleviation; these are to:

1) Make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a key element intourism development, maintaining essential ecological processes and helping to conservenatural heritage and biodiversity [For the case of cultural heritage tourism development,this first principle should add the cultural or archaeological aspect of the resource

to conserve].

2) Respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their builtand living cultural heritage and traditional values, and contribute to inter-culturalunderstanding and tolerance.

3) Ensure viable, long-term economic operations, providing socio-economic benefits toall stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income-earning opportunities and social services to host communities, and contributing topoverty alleviation (World Tourism Organization, 2007).

The current situation of the Valley of Vilcanota (the district of Machu Picchu), is

becoming uncontrollable and is currently far from sustainable. Most of the currentproblems, articulated below, fail to respect socio-cultural authenticity of localcommunities and provide them with long term fairly distributed socio-economicbenefits. On the contrary, the world heritagisation of Machu Picchu and the consequentrapid development of tourism are in some case contributing to the completetransformation of the cultural heritage and traditional values of local communities, andhave created an impediment to their accessing regional economic development. This isevidenced by the following examples:


6/10

Until 2005, a campaign was orchestrated by Tourism Concern to support theInka porter project, a non-profit organization for the Inca trail workers rights inoperation. The campaign illustrates how the rapid development of tourism has ledto the exploitation of local peasant communities through a mixture of abuses

linked to a lack of appropriate equipment, extremely low wages, the carrying ofexcessive loads and other unsafe practices, a lack of health care, job security,training, and so on. Despite some improvements such as limiting the porters loadcarrying to 25kg, providing them with better equipment, educating them aboutbest environmental practices, and promoting the best practice guidelines fortourism operators and trekkers, the working conditions of local Indigenousworkers are still below acceptable standards in terms of basic human rights (InkaPorter Project).

The construction of a new bridge at Carrilluchayoc. This current development hasgenerated intense debate and created an issue that can have significant

consequences for the World Heritage Site status of Machu Picchu. The newbridge facilitates a strategic route that connects the village of Santa Teresa and theprovince of La Convencion with the Urubamba district of Machu Picchu and theregion of Cuzco. There are two perspectives to the construction which should beconsidered. Whilst the bridge will provide an extremely poor area with economicdevelopment opportunities as it will facilitate a new access route to thearchaeological complex at Machu Picchu, it will also end a long-heldtransportation monopoly enjoyed by British PeruRail, the parent companycontrolling the railway system, which has been the only means of (mass) transportin the region. The bridge will consequently have the effect of bringing moretourists in to the region: this can be seen as a real benefit for some such as local

lodge managers, tour operators and tourist industry workers in general; it can alsostimulate the economy in isolated communities. However, from the perspective ofthe fragility of the Inca Sanctuary, the bridge poses a threat to the conservationvalues endorsed by UNESCO as it will enable the loss of control of visitorsmobilities in the region and therefore is a real a threat for its preservation.

The dispute over the Carrilluchayoc bridge is mainly narrated as a socialfight of the people against global corporations where the main heritagercipiendaires (Micoud 1996) or inheritors fight not only for their right tomodernisation, social inclusion, economic development and participation in thegeneral benefits of the tourism industry, but also for a legitimate heritage re-appropriation. The regional president of Cuzco, Hugo Gonzalez, is in favour of

the development of the bridge: It is not acceptable that there are big profits forthe owners of the railway line and hotels, yet five minutes from Cuzco we haveextreme poverty (quoted in Andina, 2007).

To provide more richness to this description, until the bridge wasconstructed, the only way for visitors to get to Machu Picchu, other than to trekfor three to four days, has been via the railway owned by the Bermuda-basedBritish corporation, Orient Express Hotels; this comprises a monopolisticeconomic situation which enables the expatriation of any economic benefits


7/10

which accrue to the company. Whilst it benefits external agencies, it does notvisibly benefit the local community beyond the obvious. Therefore, the recently-completed construction of the 80 meters long bridge will drastically improve theaccess to Cuzco region, increase the potential of trade in traditional agriculturalproducts and generally enhance the local economy, thereby ending the social and

economic isolation of many communities that have been severely disadvantagedby the inflated costs of having to travel by train. From one side, environmentalorganizations, the Peruvian government (though rather passively) and theinternational community (led by UNESCO) have opposed the building of thebridge and expressed their concerns over the potential increase of visitors to thesacred Inca sanctuary at Machu Picchu. As the director of the World HeritageCentre argues: This is unacceptable, we cannot open up (the region) to the trafficof motorised vehicles in such a fragile zone; this is also compromising thehistorical landscape of Machu Picchu (quoted in Andina, 2007). The bridge wasinaugurated on March 24th 2007, shortly after a UNESCO commission is expectedto arrive to monitor and assess the real potential for damage to Machu Picchu.

They will also evaluate, once again, the possibility of placing Machu Picchu onthe World Heritage Endangered list. Without pertinent impact studies, or trafficcontrol, it is estimated that the bridge could easily double the daily volume ofvisitors (current levels average 2,000 per day, (BADATUR 2007). This potentialincrease also concerns the scientists working evaluating the optimal carryingcapacity of Machu Picchu in terms of its sustainability (recently limited to 2,500visitors per day (UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, 2005: 44).

The region is known as an area which suffers from recurrent landslides. Severalconcerns have been expressed about a lack of proper scientific studies on theimpact of tourist buses on the propensity to landslide conditions, on the carrying

capacity of the sanctuary and the associated Inca trail, or on natural riskmanagement within the area. Following the results of an assessment made byresearchers from the University of Kyotos Disaster Prevention Research Institute(Sassa et al., 2002), geoscientists aspire to identify and understand the predictivephenomena associated with large-scale landslides around such unique culturalheritage sites by assessing the location, size, velocity and hazard area of theselandslides (Sassa et al, 2002: 45). This team has published research whichevaluates the risk of landslides through the deformation of the surface of theground, and geological drillings: their findings highly recommend that furtherimpact studies be conducted before any concrete conclusions are reached.

This problem is directly related to another crucial local community probleminherent to the potential increase of mass tourism: the chaotic urban planning andrapid growth of Aguas Calientes, Machu Picchus host town. In addition tothreatening the whole landscape of the region, and the biodiversity of the site,through bad urban planning regulations, the natural risk of landslides in the regionwould purportedly endanger the lives of up to 60 local families. Plans relating tothe construction of a new pilot village to host these families show no sign ofimproved urban design, planning, environmental impacts monitoring, or impact


8/10

on the archaeological complex as the village would be reconstructed within thelimits of the Sanctuary (UNESCO, World Heritage Committee 2005: 44).

Lastly, as a result of all these managerial problems, in 2002 UNESCO requestedthe direct assistance of the World Bank in order to address many of these specific

conservation needs. In addition to improving tourism infrastructure, managementand services, this project would take into account the support and development oflocal communities. Accounting for around 100,000 inhabitants, the VilcanotaValley Rehabilitation and Management Project, agreed in 2005 by the WorldBank, and implemented in conjunction with the National Geographic Society, theWorld Monuments Fund, NGOs and other bilateral donors, will thereforecontribute to: the resettlement of vulnerable households in Machu Picchu Pueblo[that] includes options for cash compensation, relocation within the city limits, orresettlement to a new community; and local economic development (which) will support community-driven development, by enhancing the capacity oflocal tourism service providers, constructing community tele-centers, and

promoting local economic initiatives, through the development of a marketplacefacility (World Bank 2007). The implementation of this ambitious 5 million US$project is currently active under the assistance and guidance of UNESCO(UNESCO, World Heritage Committee 2005:45).

Conclusion

The perceptions that Machu Picchu has lost its authenticity or its sense of placeare directly linked to the rapid and unplanned pace of tourism development in the region.Declaring Machu Picchu as a World Heritage Site was a global recognition of thesanctuarys outstanding value and the very authentication of its genuineness. Eventhough UNESCO officially endorses the principles of sustainable development, it can

be argued that the local response and general directions of Machu Picchus managementhave considerably neglected community issues. Despite having looked at only a fewgeneral problematic issues, an understanding of the example of Machu Picchu will becrucial for the development of Choquequirao as a tourist destination. The new paradigmofsustainability should be the fundament of the very definition of maintained criteriaof authenticity. Configured through such a principle of sustainability, the clear notion ofauthenticity would be a valuable first step towards providing context-sensitiverecommendations and long-term planning guidelines which could be specificallyconfigured to manage and optimize the potential for the development of high levels ofsustainable tourism at Choquequirao.

Bibliography

-Arellano, Alexandra (2004) Spirits, Bodies and Incas: Performing Machu Picchu, inJohn Urry and Mimi Sheller (eds) Tourism Mobilities: Places in Play, Places toPlay, Londres, Routledge.

-BADATUR (Banco de datos turisticos, Universidad de San Martin de Lima, Peru,http://badatur.turismo.usmp.edu.pe/, 2007.

-Baudrillard, J. (1988)America, London: Verso.-Bauman, Z. (1987)Legislators and Interpreters, On modernity, Post Modernity and
http://badatur.turismo.usmp.edu.pe/http://badatur.turismo.usmp.edu.pe/


9/10

Intellectuals, Oxford: Polity Press.-Beck, U. (1994) The reinvention of Politics: Toward a Theory of Reflexive

Modernisation, in Beck, Giddens and Lash (eds)Reflexive Modernisation,Cambridge: Polity Press.

-Bruner, E. M. (1994) 'Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of

Postmodernism', inAmerican Anthropologist. 96 (2) pp. 397-415.-Cohen, E. (1988) 'Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism',Annals of TourismResearch, 15 (3): 371-386.

-Eagles, P. (1997)International Ecotourism Management : Using Australia and Africa asCase Studies, Matrei, Australia.

-Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry, London: Methuen.-Wright, P. (1985) On Living in an Old Country, London: Verso.-Hobsbawm, E. (1983) Mass Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914, in Hobsbawm

and Ranger (eds) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

-Inka Porter Project, http://www.peruweb.org/porters/.

-Lanfant, M-F. (1994) Identit, mmoire, patrimoine et touristification de nossocits , published in Socits, n. 46, pp. 433-439.-MacCannell, D. (1999 [1976]) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, New

york: McGraw-Hill.-MacCannell, D. (1992)Empty Meeting Grounds, The Tourist Paper, New York:

Routledge.-MacCannell, D. (2001) Tourist Agency, Tourist Studies, 1: 23-38.-McCrone, D., Morris, A. and Kelly, R. (1995) Scotland the Brand, the Making of

Scottish Heritage, Edinburgh University Press.-Meethan, K. (2001) Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption,

PALGRAVE.-Micoud, A. (1997) Muse et patrimoine: deux types de rapport aux choses et au temps,

Herms, n. 20, CNRS Editions.-Rojek, C. (1993) Ways of Escape: Modern Transformation in Leisure and Travel,

Basingstoke: Macmillan.-Mowforth M. and Munt I. (2003) Tourism and sustainability : Development and new

tourism in the Third World, Routledge.-Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Shuzui, H., and Hoshino, M. (2002) Landslide Risk Evaluation

in the Machu Picchu World Heritage, Cusco, Peru, inL.R.M. and Protection ofCultural and Natural Heritage International Symposium,http://www.n-koei.co.jp/library/pdf/forum11_006.pdf

-UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (2005) Operational Guidelines for the Implementationof the World Heritage Convention, Paris.

-UNESCO, World Heritage Committee (2005) State of Conservation Reports ofProperties Inscribed on the World Heritage List, WHC-05/05/29.COM/7B.Rev:Paris.

-Urry, J. (2002) [1990] The Tourist Gaze, London: Sage.-Welsh, Alex (2002) Choquequirao, The Real Lost City of the Inca, http://www.travel-library.com/south_america/peru/pe_20060616192543.html-World Bankhttp://web.worldbank.org
http://www.peruweb.org/porters/http://www.n-koei.co.jp/library/pdf/forum11_006.pdfhttp://www.travel-library.com/south_america/peru/pe_20060616192543.htmlhttp://www.travel-library.com/south_america/peru/pe_20060616192543.htmlhttp://web.worldbank.org/http://web.worldbank.org/http://www.travel-library.com/south_america/peru/pe_20060616192543.htmlhttp://www.travel-library.com/south_america/peru/pe_20060616192543.htmlhttp://www.n-koei.co.jp/library/pdf/forum11_006.pdfhttp://www.peruweb.org/porters/


10/10

-World Bank Vilcanota project:(http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSitePK=40941&Projectid=P082625)-World Heritage Centre http://whc.unesco.org/-World Tourism Organization: http://www.world-

tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.html
http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSitePK=40941&Projectid=P082625http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSitePK=40941&Projectid=P082625http://whc.unesco.org/http://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.htmlhttp://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.htmlhttp://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.htmlhttp://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.htmlhttp://whc.unesco.org/http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSitePK=40941&Projectid=P082625http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSitePK=40941&Projectid=P082625

Documents

The “most known” lost city of the Incas Or how to preserve Choquequirao, its “authentic” sacred sister