Comments on: Who looted Machu Picchu first?

By: Daniel Buck

Daniel Buck — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:55:27 +0000

The above posts in reference to Berns’s concesson to excavate ruins were based on a unofficial copy of the decree granting the concession. I’ve since located an official copy, and it indicates that Berns was authorized to excavate in both the La Convencion and Urubamba provinces of the Department of Cuzco. (Machu Picchu is in the Urubamba province.) Nonetheless the larger point remains: the concession specifies no ruin in particular and there are inumerable ruins in the two provinces, some still being discovered today. Thus it is ludicrous to leap from the general concession to the specific conclusion that Berns intended to loot or did loot Machu Picchu.

In any event, there’s no evidence he ever hired a mule or turned a spade. His company apparently collapsed soon after it was launched amidst charges — detailed in angry letters published in EL COMERCIO in 1888 — that he had spent company money for his personal expenses.

Daniel Buck

By: DBuck

DBuck — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:46:12 +0000

There are several references to this controversy on lastdaysoftheinca.com.

The proponents of the Berns achu Picchu looting story have not presented a single speck of evidence — other than speculation untethered to facts, the sort Baron Von Munchausen might appreciate — to support the idea that A.R. Berns even knew about, let alone looted Machu Picchu.

He did establish a stock company in 1887 in Peru, “Huacas del Inca,” with the purported purpose of hunting for Inca treasure. There is no evidence presented so far, however, that he ever turned a spade. It seems more likely that he was hunting treasure in the pockets of gullible investors.

Several years earlier, in 1881, Berns had another company in which he was seeking the equivalent in today’s money of a couple of hundred million dollars to develop a gold and silver property, Torontoy, in the Urubamba Valley (up and across the river from Machu Picchu), which he claimed to be the richest on earth. As far as anyone knows, nothing came of that venture either.

By the way, in my earlier post, I was imprecise in my discussion of the 1887 concession Berns obtained to excavate ruins in the Distrito de La Convencion. Neither his Torontoy property nor Machu Picchu are located in the Distrito de La Convencion. In any event, the concession did not specify any particular ruin.
Dan Buck

By: livius drusus

livius drusus — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:19:26 +0000

Oo, intriguing! Do you have any sources you could name? If so, I’d love to post your rebuttal as an entry.

By: DBuck

DBuck — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:33:53 +0000

The AP story is incorrect. Machu Picchu is high on a mountain across and down the Urubamba River from where Berns’s tract was. There is no evidence that he even knew of Machu Picchu’s existence. He did obtain a government decree, dated June 16, 1887, setting forth certain conditions under which he could excavate Inca burials and ruins in the province of Convencion (where his prperty was located) in the department of Cuzco. But no specific sites where named. There is, in fact, no evidence that he ever excavated anything. DBuck

By: livius drusus

livius drusus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:19:04 +0000

It seems to me our grasping Peruvian friend could have easily aimed for a 50-50 deal and still been able wash his hands of the details, but I suppose aiming too high is one of the classic blunders of corrupt regimes.

I do wonder how the governmental and/or cultural elites viewed their Inca heritage at the time. They certainly didn’t treat what was left of Incan descendants terribly well. Perhaps they looked down on the “savages” despite their savage goldsmithing cash money skills.