A royal city in the clouds — built, abandoned, and hidden from the world for centuries.
Need an easier version? Read this lesson at A2/B1 level →
Before we read, let's unlock the words you'll need. Each one is hidden in a sentence. Read it aloud and say what you think the bold word means from the rest of the sentence — then reveal it and see how close you were.
Read each part. After it, there's a quick comprehension check (try the questions from memory first), then one thing to discuss.
By the middle of the fifteenth century, the Inca ruled the largest empire the Americas had ever seen — a realm of perhaps twelve million people, stretching some four thousand miles along the Andes, all governed from the mountain capital of Cusco. The man who had driven much of that expansion was the emperor Pachacuti, a ruler remembered as a kind of founder, the one who turned a regional kingdom into an empire.
It was almost certainly Pachacuti who, around 1450, ordered a new royal estate to be built on a high ridge above the Urubamba river, roughly eighty kilometres from Cusco. We know it today as Machu Picchu. It was never a city in the ordinary sense, and it was never meant to hold a large population. It was a private mountain retreat for the emperor, his family and his court — a place to host feasts, perform ceremonies, and display the wealth and reach of his lineage.
What makes it extraordinary is how it was made. Inca builders had no iron tools, no wheel and no mortar, yet they cut and fitted enormous blocks of granite so precisely that the joints are almost invisible. They carved hundreds of terraces into the steep slope to grow food and hold the mountain in place, and they channelled fresh spring water through stone fountains across the whole site. On a carved outcrop stood the Intihuatana, a shaped stone that tracked the sun — at the heart of a place built as much for the gods as for the emperor.
1. Who probably ordered Machu Picchu to be built, and what was it for?
2. What was remarkable about how the Inca built it, given the tools they had?
1. The emperor Pachacuti, around 1450. It was a royal estate — a private mountain retreat for the emperor and his court, for feasts, ceremonies and displaying his lineage's power — not an ordinary city.
2. With no iron tools, no wheel and no mortar, they cut and fitted huge granite blocks so precisely the joints are almost invisible, carved hundreds of farming terraces, and ran spring water through stone fountains.
Machu Picchu was lived in for only about eighty years. Then, in the 1530s, the world that had built it came apart. The Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro landed on the Pacific coast in 1532, and with a tiny force, steel weapons, horses and — above all — the European diseases that ran ahead of him, he tore the Inca empire apart with astonishing speed. The emperor was captured and killed; Cusco fell; and the structures of Inca power collapsed within a few short years.
Somewhere in that upheaval, Machu Picchu was quietly abandoned. We do not know exactly why or exactly when — perhaps its royal purpose simply ended with the dynasty that owned it. But here is the crucial twist: the Spanish never found it. Tucked high on its ridge, far from the main roads, it slipped out of the conquerors' reach entirely. And because they never found it, they never looted it and never tore it down, as they did with so many Inca temples elsewhere.
So Machu Picchu was left to the mountain. The terraces emptied, the fountains fell silent, and the forest closed over the stone. For nearly four hundred years it sat there, overgrown and forgotten by the outside world — though never entirely forgotten by the local people who farmed those slopes, some of whom went on living quietly among the ruins.
1. What happened to the Inca empire in the 1530s, and who led the Spanish conquest?
2. Why does it matter so much that the Spanish never found Machu Picchu?
1. Francisco Pizarro landed in 1532 and, with steel weapons, horses and European diseases, destroyed the empire within a few years — the emperor was killed and Cusco fell.
2. Because they never found it, they never looted or destroyed it, as they did to Inca temples elsewhere — so it survived intact rather than in ruins.
In July 1911 an American historian and explorer, Hiram Bingham, was searching the cloud forest for the last city of the Inca. A local farmer, Melchor Arteaga, agreed to lead him up the steep ridge to some ruins the local families already knew well. Near the top, Bingham met farmers living among the stones — and it was a small boy from one of those families who walked him through the overgrown terraces to the heart of the site.
So Bingham did not "discover" Machu Picchu in any honest sense. The people of the valley had never lost it; an earlier visitor had even left his name scratched on a wall years before. What Bingham did do was photograph it, write about it, and bring it to the world's attention — backed by Yale University and National Geographic — so that a place the wider world had never heard of suddenly became famous everywhere. The word "discovery" did a great deal of quiet work, erasing the guides who already knew the way.
From there, Machu Picchu's fame only grew. It was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1983 and voted one of the New Seven Wonders of the World in 2007. Today around a million and a half visitors a year climb to the ridge — so many that Peru now limits the crowds to protect the stone. The royal estate that was built to be private, then lost for four centuries, has become one of the most visited and most photographed monuments on earth.
1. What did Hiram Bingham actually do in 1911 — and why is "discovered" the wrong word?
2. How famous has Machu Picchu become since then?
1. Led by a local farmer (Melchor Arteaga) and guided through the ruins by a local boy, he photographed the site and brought it to world attention. "Discovered" is wrong because local families had always known it — they had never lost it.
2. It became a UNESCO World Heritage Site (1983) and a New Seven Wonder of the World (2007), and now draws around 1.5 million visitors a year — so many that numbers must be limited.
Nobody can be certain why Machu Picchu was built or why it was abandoned. When we report what people in general believe — without naming who — English uses passive reporting structures. They let you state a theory carefully, signalling "this is widely said, not proven." Perfect for a lost city whose purpose is still debated.
Report each theory about the city with it + is + believed / thought / said + that + a clause. Choose the reporting verb that fits the certainty.
1. It (believe) that Machu Picchu (be) a royal retreat for the emperor.
2. It (think) that the city (be) abandoned within a century of being built.
3. It (say) that the stonework (fit) together so tightly that no blade can pass between the blocks.
1. is believed / was
2. is thought / was
3. is said / fits
Now move the subject to the front: subject + is + thought / believed / said + to + infinitive (a present state) or to have + past participle (the past).
1. Machu Picchu (think) to (be) a private estate for Pachacuti's court. (past)
2. Its true purpose (say) to (be) a mystery even now. (present)
3. Hiram Bingham (believe) to (rely) on local guides who already knew the way. (past)
1. is thought / to have been
2. is said / to be
3. is believed / to have relied
Take the same belief and report it both ways. Fill the gap so each pair means the same thing. Read both aloud.
1. It is thought that the Inca tracked the sun from the Intihuatana. → The Inca (think) to (track) the sun from the Intihuatana.
2. The city is believed to have been emptied after the conquest. → It (believe) that the city (empty) after the conquest.
1. are thought / to have tracked
2. is believed / was emptied
Notice how Pattern B lets you put the thing you're discussing first, then report the belief about it.
This is the passive-reporting strand — the careful "it is believed that…" language you'll use to report theories about a mystery in the Speak tab without claiming them as fact.
You've read the story and you have the words — so now the real thing is within reach. There's a full podcast episode that tells this story in much greater depth, in natural, real-speed English.
From the Noiser podcast network. Hosted by historians, roughly 50 minutes.
Listen on Spotify →This is the heart of the lesson — do all four out loud. The timer is there to keep you going: fill the time with detail rather than escaping it.
Tell the story of Machu Picchu in your own words, as if to someone who has never heard of it. Move through the arc: the Inca empire and Pachacuti → the royal estate and how it was built → the Spanish conquest and the abandonment → the four lost centuries → Bingham, the guides, and world fame.
Use at least five key words from the lesson (empire, terraces, hewn, dynasty, shrine, conquest, derelict, rampant, prominence, edifice), and slip in at least one passive reporting structure ("It is believed that…", "… is thought to have been…").
We still don't know for certain why Machu Picchu was built or why it was abandoned. Report the competing theories without naming who holds them — use passive reporting throughout: "It is believed that it was a royal retreat…", "Some say it was a religious site…", "It is thought to have been abandoned because…", "Its purpose is still said to be a mystery." Lay out at least three different explanations and say which you find most convincing — and why.
Choose another place, object or event whose true story is still debated — a ruin, a shipwreck, a painting, a famous unsolved puzzle, even a local legend. Report what people believe about it without saying who: how it is thought to have begun, what it is said to have been for, why it is believed to have ended the way it did. Keep your passive reporting structures doing the work ("It is believed that…", "… is thought to have been…").
Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it: