Skip to comments.Peru to sue Yale for Inca treasure 'theft'
Posted on 03/05/2006 10:40:21 AM PST by wagglebee
PERU plans to sue Yale University to recover thousands of artefacts excavated from Machu Picchu more than 90 years ago.
The South American country is seeking the return of some 4,900 artefacts from the Inca citadel, including ceramics, cloths and metalwork.
Peru says they were lent to Yale for 18 months in 1916 but that the university in New Haven, Connecticut, has held on to them ever since.
"Yale does not recognise the Peruvian state's ownership of these artefacts," Peru's ambassador to Washington, Eduardo Ferrero, said in a statement.
He complained that after three years of talks, Yale officials were no longer acting in "good faith".
The statement said US explorer Hiram Bingham had originally been given permission to export the items on the understanding they were on loan and would be returned.
The university said in a statement that it had submitted a revised proposal last week for a settlement that would include returning many of the objects.
"We are disappointed that the government has rejected this proposal and is apparently determined to sue Yale University," the statement said.
It added that the collection was legally excavated and exported "in line with practices of the time".
"We are disappointed that the government of Peru has broken off negotiations before the upcoming elections in Peru, instead of working out the framework for a stable and long-term resolution," it said.
The South American country holds elections in April. The statement noted that Yale had proposed to work with the government of Peru to set up parallel exhibitions of Inca objects at Yale and at a new museum to be built in Peru.
The country has been seeking to retrieve the artefacts now because it aims to put them on public display in 2011 for the centenary of Machu Picchu's rediscovery by Bingham.
Peru's ambassador said the latest Yale proposal was unacceptable because it did not recognise Peru's ownership of the items. "[Yale] maintains that these archeological artefacts belong to humanity, but at the same time it is trying to appropriate them as part of its collection," Ferrero said.
"The Peruvian government... will bring a suit against Yale University before the American courts," Ferrero said.
Bingham, a Yale graduate, found Machu Picchu in the Andes under thick forest in 1911. The pre-Columbian ruins of an entire city were essentially forgotten, perched on a mountain saddle 8,400ft above sea level. Machu Picchu lay at the heart of the Inca empire, which dominated South America from Colombia to Chile until being toppled by Spanish conquistadors in the 1530s. The Andes site attracts more than 500,000 tourists every year.
The 4,902 objects of gold, silver, bone, ceramic and stone from the Inca citadel were carried back to Yale in 1912 by Bingham, an archaeologist, who had reached what he dubbed "the lost city of the Incas" the year before.
Recent research indicates that Machu Picchu was actually discovered in 1902 - nine years before Bingham's expedition - by Peruvian farmer Agustin Lizarraga and two companions, Gabino Sanchez and Enrique Palma, on a trek through the southern jungle province of Cuzco.
With a peasant boy as his guide and a Peruvian civil-guardsman as an escort, Bingham arrived at the site of the Inca citadel on July 24, 1911.
The battle between Yale and Peru over the historic treasures has highlighted a worrying issue for museum curators: how many prized treasures in their collections are plundered goods that should be restored to their rightful owners?
New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art seemed to set some sort of an example last week when it announced it would return to Italy a number of antiquities, including a 2,500-year-old Greek vase looted from a tomb north of Rome in 1971 and sold to the museum a year later.
It might be an unwelcome precedent for other institutions, not least the British Museum.
It is locked in battle with Greece to retain marble statues removed from the Parthenon in the early 19th century by Lord Elgin, and known as the Elgin Marbles.
The quarrel between Peru and Yale's Peabody Museum is similar, even if Bingham won a "special dispensation" from the government to take Inca artefacts out of Peru.
For decades, the mainly ceramic treasures sat in boxes at Yale as Peru called for their return. Three years ago, the Peabody staged an Inca exhibition that included artefacts the American explorer had brought home.
The Peruvians were furious - all the more so considering that President Alejandro Toledo, the first indigenous Peruvian to hold the country's highest office, has saluted the nation's Inca heritage and held part of his inauguration ceremony at Machu Picchu.
I'd like to sue Yale for allowing the spokesman of the Taliban to attend their school while disallowing the US Military on campus and then having the bloody nerve to collect Federal money that I am providing them through my income tax payments. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Peru seems to be in the right on this.
The liberal elite is all for supporting the downtrodden third world until they're the ones called upon to do the right thing.
This statement is meaningful if, and only if, the understanding was made in writing and both parties can produce identical copies.
I suspect that this is a retroactive thing on Peru's part, relying mainly on their "understanding" of verbal agreement at the time.
This is similar to Mexico's claims; or Egypt's; or Iraq's.
All are sources of treasures sought, found and preserved by Europeans, and of absolutely no value to the world's present stage of either civilization, societal maturity or technological excellence.
I say return them all, let them deteriorate and disappear, and everyone will be none the worse for it.
Exactly and frankly, I'm wondering if museums and universities have a leg to stand on. They exploited peasants decades ago and took things known to be valuable but the locals often believed to be worthless. Even with clear lines of sale or transfer (as in this case) these antiquities can obviously be worth millions today. I'm a firm believer in "finders keepers" but I don't think a court of law would see it the same way.....
Mind expanding on this opinion?
Are you suggesting study of the past is not important? As far a no value, I'm sure many people would pay big to have King Tut's mask hanging on their living room wall.....;)
This is circular reasoning. Who caused them eventually to be worth millions? Are the present inhabitants of the source of these "treasures" willing to pay what they are "worth" today? I didn't think so.
A treasure, as anything else, is worth no more and no less than what someone is willing to pay for them.
Let's suppose. Suppose all these treasures are returned no questions asked. Not even the expense made to restore and preserve them, or to warehouse them in special environments.
Further suppose that the present inhabitants of these sterling countries decide to sell them to the highest bidders. Would you prevent them from repeating the original mistake? By what authority?
And if not, what's to prevent the repetition of this charade in another 100 years?
This is why I take pleasure in this article.
Not in Egypt... or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In most cases, that's exactly what I'm saying.
In these cases, the driving force is solely the artificial value induced on the artifacts by the "exploiters". The inhabitants of the original source of the objects have not suggested refunding even the intrinsic worth of the articles.
Of course you are allowed to have one, even if off the wall. What you are not allowed, however, is to make the decision in resolving the dispute or to force your opinion on others.
I believe you and I are saying the same thing. I believe all antiquities should stay right where they are at present, including the British Museum. In this particular case, if Peru can prove that these items were "loaned" then Yale should give them up, if not......to bad for Peru. It will be interesting to see how a court of law rules on this. My guess is universities and museums will be forced to return these objects in the future.....globalism and all that....
Geronimo's skull is trivial.
What is not is the qualitative implications of this line of reasoning:
The Louisiana Purchase.
The Purchase of Alaska.
The Gadsen Purchase.
Sounds like with Yale leaving them in boxes for decades, they knew they were supposed to return them. Yes, I do know most of any museum's collection is in storage but in storage for nearly a hundred years? I don't think so. Ship them back and let's hope they are displayed for all to see.
I fear, however, that some on this thread, infected with the PC virus are saying quite different things.
You obviously are not Native American. I happen to be one-quarter myself. What do you think would happen if it were discovered that Yale had Frederick Douglas' bones hidden? The whole campus would have been burned during the late 1960's.
The United States should now start to scour the entire country of Peru looking for anything that once belonged to the US (even the stones and granite used to make Peru's buildings) and demand those back, poste haste.
BTW does Peru owe the U.S. any money? Time to demand that loan repayment back right now, plus interest.
Also so many Peruvians have gone to Yale University to study - should Yale demand that they get their education back?
Time for the old Skull and Bones Peruvian branch to do some secret work behind the scenes in Peru.
Please don't go to New Haven. It's not sanitary.
From reading the article, I get the idea that:
a) Peru claims ownership of these artifacts
b) Yale refuses to acknowledge Peru's ownership, but also does not explicitly claim ownership themselves, and it attempting to negotiate favorable terms for partial repatriation of the artifacts
It's hard to escape the conclusion that Yale knows it doesn't own the artifacts, knows that Peru does, and just doesn't want to admit it because then Peru would have the right to have all the artifacts returned immediately, and Yale would lose its bargaining position.
Yale was lent the artifacts and now is trying to leverage its current possession into part ownership.
"If Yale can't produce a transfer of ownership from Peru, Yale is in possession of stolen property."
Wow. If I visit Mexico or wherever, and buy any native art or handiwork or anything at all really, and do not have a bill of sale that matches the bill of sale that the sellers have, I am in possession of stolen goods.
Seems like all the seller has to do is lose their copy, and I am now in possession of stolen goods. Great racket if you can get into it.
If it was on loan it should be returned. Even the fact that Peru is poor does not justify stealing Peruvian artifacts.
Yeah, why don't they send the Taliban spokesman down there, he'll straighten the whole thing out, or better yet, get his head shrunk.
Taliban ? Peru is a Christian country.
BTW, the University of Lima is one of the oldest universities in Americas, it was founded in 1551 AD, long before Yale.
Might as well burn down Monticello while we're at it, eh? Pave over Gettysburg and put up a racino and a McDonald's? Chip up Stonehenge for bricks and grind the Parthenon to dust?
The ex-Taliban spokesman is a student at Yale.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I was taught that when you borrowed something, you were to return it as quickly as possible and in better shape than when you borrowed it.
"Recent research indicates that Machu Picchu was actually discovered in 1902 - nine years before Bingham's expedition - by Peruvian farmer Agustin Lizarraga and two companions, Gabino Sanchez and Enrique Palma, on a trek through the southern jungle province of Cuzco."
Guess they weren't as good as Bingham at picking up stuff off the ground.
Peruvians are in their right.
If some country had Lincoln's mummy im sure America would want it back.
If any artefacts are legally acquired then it's ok but unfortunately, western governments have stolen or bought stolen artefacts A LOT. There's gonna be plenty left though, and acknowledging the other's ownership would be the justifiable thing to do.
Museums will probably use the loan-system a lot, where they simply lend artefacts to other countries and museums and lend other ones the next year. That would make the museums a lot more popular too, as many seem to never change much in display.
From The Gadsen Purchase of 1854 Securing Mesilla Valley
By Phyllis Eileen Banks
Events always have a precursor and the Gadsden Purchase is no exception. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war with Mexico. It confirmed U.S. claims to Texas and set its boundary at the Rio Grande. Mexico also agreed to cede to the United States, California and New Mexico. This included what is now California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah as well as parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. The purchase price was $15 million and assumption by the United States of claims against Mexico by U. S. citizens. The U. S. Senate ratified it on March 10, 1848 and the Mexican Congress on May 25.
The boundary was vague and both sides were unhappy. Mesilla was a part of Mexico and was on the west bank of the Rio Grande. Las Cruces and Dona Ana were on the east bank of the river and were in American territory. So many pioneers came to claim the American land, many native Mexicans moved away. If they wanted to remain in the area they just moved across the river. The town of Chamberino began as a refuge for New Mexicans who could choose between Mexico and the United States. In 1853 the Mesilla Civil Colony Land Grant was issued by the Mexican government, and Mesilla was formed. President Franklin Pierce wanted to insure U. S. possession of the Mesilla Valley as it was the most practical route for a southern railroad to the Pacific, but it was still owned by Mexico.
Enter James Gadsden, railroad promoter and diplomat. Gadsden was appointed Minister to Mexico in 1853 and was instructed to purchase the border strip of approximately 30,000 square miles. The purchase would include the Mesilla Valley, providing the land for the southern railroad. Gadsden negotiated the purchase for $10 million, and the Senate ratified it in 1854 by a narrow margin. Those who had moved across the river to be in Mexico now found themselves in the United States. The U. S. Government, however, honored the ownership under the Mexican Land Grant. On November 16, 1854 the flag of Mexico was lowered and the flag of the United States was raised in the plaza of Mesilla. Unfortunately the Santa Fe Railroad did not include Mesilla in its railroad route but chose Las Cruces instead.
From the above, the nationality of the states their lands we know today as Texas, CA, WY, CO, NV, UT, AZ, and NM were confirmed as US in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe, INCLUDING a $15 million purchase AND assumption of all claims against the Mexican Government.
People resettled to adjsut to nationality and the areas in a riverine valley were debatable. That area was GRANTED to settlers by Mexico and then the area resolved again by the US paying another $10 million to confirm the national boundaries without going to war again.
Even though these two international agreements settled the issue of US and Mexican authority over the lands and established those boundaries, the Gadsen Purchase further allowed the US to protect the interests of those who had settled on the land as a Mexican GRANT, and gave them OWNERSHIP of the land as US citizens.
All past confusion over land ownership was resolved in those two actions, with the US paying far more than what it was probably worth.
Gadsen purchase was for 30,000 sections for $10 million or about $2/acre. Land in undeveloped Tennessee still sold for a $1/acre about a century later in the 1940s.
Anytime a revisionist attempts to cloud the issue on Texas and CA nationality, remember these two agreements. Both had material exchange of monies between them and one of them also concluded a state of war. Both methods of addressing grievances which are recognized throughout recorded history had been performed in finalizing the nationality of the lands in question.
You are correct. Many seem to confuse the resolution of ending a war as being a rape of one side by the other.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo seems to get ignored by those living west of Texas in their state history education.
But some think that if the lender is poor and weak you have right to seize his property.
Or Yale forgot they had them, or Yale was hoping Peru would forget Yale had them, or the artefacts weren't really very important to Yale.
I'm of the opinion that, after nearly a century, Yale's lease has run out.