Since then, the new name was used in maps, history books and other documents around the world without question.
It wasn't until 1990 that some experts questioned its authenticity.
Despite its fame, many locals in the Cusco region were not aware of the Incan ruins until the early 20th century, although they knew the mountains on either side of the long-lost city well.
In most photos, the small, steep peak behind the ruins is called 'Huayna Picchu' while the larger, sloped peak is called 'Machu Picchu'.
Before Bingham set out on his expedition, his journals describe a conversation with the leader of a nearby town, Adolfo Quevedo, who called the ruins 'Huayna Picchu'.
Just a few days later, a local farmer told Bingham there were ruins called 'Huayna Picchu' close by. There were other ruins on the summit of Machi Picchu, the farmer said, but these were far smaller than the ones that sit close to Huayna Picchu.
In his journal, Bingham used the phrase 'Maccu Picchu, Huayna Pichu' to describe the site.
However, once he spoke to Melchor Arteaga, he settled on 'Machu Picchu'.
Experts question whether Arteaga was talking about the ruins on Machu Picchu, instead of the ruins of Huayna Picchu.
"From his field notes and his letter, it appears that in calling the ruined city Machu Picchu, Bingham was following the information provided by Melchor Arteaga," authors write in a recent analysis.
"Since Mr. Arteaga lived at the base of the mountain and had visited the ruins before, and even climbed Huayna Picchu, there was no reason for Bingham to question the name, even though in an earlier conversation, held in the town of Urubamba, the ruins were specifically called Huayna Picchu."
In the 1990s, Andean scholar John Rowe became one of the first to argue that 'Machu Picchu' was a misnomer. Rowe referenced several 16th-century letters and documents from Spanish colonists who described an ancient Incan town known as 'Picchu'.
"[W]hile negative evidence is never as fulfilling, it is intriguing that we know of no reference to an Inca city called Machu Picchu before news of Bingham's visit exploded across the world in 1912," the researchers wrote.
For this reason, the study isn't conclusive but researchers agree 'Machu Picchu' is likely incorrect and the name of the site is probably 'Huayna Picchu'.
While the documents they analysed have existed for centuries, previous researchers dismissed observations and events that new researchers deemed important.
For example, in one journal entry, Bingham described "a talkative old fellow who had spent a large part of his life in prospecting for mines in the department of Cusco, said that he had seen ruins 'finer than Choqquequirau' at a place called Huayna Picchu".
This led the authors to say, "while Bingham suggested that the name of the fantastic ruins that he brought to the world's attention was 'lost in the shadows of the past' it is of some comfort that continued research is beginning to pierce those shadows and provide insights into the name and history of that city."
