A look at how the agreement between Yale University & Peru [1] sits within the wider context of cultural property repatriation claims.
From:
Indiana Statesman [2]
Artifact repatriation is long overdue
BY PETRA HENDRICKSON
Issue date: 9/19/07 Section: OpinionYale University announced yesterday that it would indeed return over 4,000 pieces of Incan history to the South American country of Peru, a British Broadcasting Corporation story reported.
I was happy when I read this story. Sure, previous attempts at negotiating this same return have failed in the past, but they’ve succeeded this time, and there’s something to be said for that.
All too often it seems as if country A demands the return of historically meaningful artifacts either stolen, taken under false pretenses, taken but never returned or “rightfully” possessed by country B, which typically responds by thumbing its nose at country A.This time, I know it must have been a hard decision for Yale because the artifacts were excavated from 1911-1915 by a Yale professor, and include items such as jewelry, mummies and musical instruments. A university that prides itself as an intellectual and cultural powerhouse can’t possibly easily part with items from such an acclaimed ancient empire.
Because it knows it needs to be done, but also knowing it’s not easy to do, Yale has come up with a variety of ways to soften the blow of having to return the items.
First, Yale and Peru will cosponsor a traveling exhibition of the artifacts. Additionally, Yale will help oversee the development of a museum in Cuzco, Peru. This site is very close to Machu Picchu, from whence many of the items were discovered, and which may also be the birthplace of Incan civilization.
Machu Picchu was rediscovered by the same Yale professor who brought back all the artifacts (Hiram Bingham) in 1911. The museum is intended to open in time for the 100 year celebration of the event. Second, Yale will get to hold on to a few of the relics for a bit longer in order to conduct further research.
Last, and I think most interestingly, Yale hopes to foster a lasting relationship with Peru by promoting a scholarly exchange program. This program will last at least three years, hopefully longer.
All this is refreshing. Granted, Yale is in all likelihood doing this somewhat grudgingly (or, at a minimum, to avoid the issue being taken to court). At the same time, it’s still doing it. In this light, does it matter so much that it’s reluctant?
Britain and Greece have been arguing about the Elgin Marbles (a decidedly Greek piece of history) for years (the BBC Web site has stories on the tussle off and on for the entire duration of its archive, which means surely it’s been going on for longer), and no resolution has been reached on that one. Britain’s main line of argumentation, I believe, is that it has them, not Greece, so there.
It’s somewhat astonishing that there are still debates over who should get whose pieces of history. It may all seem a little petty (and to an extent, it is), but bring it closer to home. Imagine how the collective whole of America would feel if, when we were but a fledgling little country (but after George Washington’s death), some university professor from somewhere else came and exhumed Washington’s grave, whisking the bones back to his country and university of origin and refusing to give them back, essentially claiming finders-keepers.
In the case of both the Elgin marbles and the Machu Picchu artifacts, this is basically what has happened. I think a variation of the golden rule works best: don’t take from other countries what you would be unwilling to have taken from yours.