Eliena Karp: Presentacion Universidad de Yale


Published on

Published in: Travel, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eliena Karp: Presentacion Universidad de Yale

  1. 1. Machu Picchu evidences: Identity and Cultural Patrimony Yale must return all the artifacts unconditionally Prof. Eliane Karp-Toledo Stanford University March 6th, 2009
  2. 2. November 28, 1916 UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTION (below) “Now they do not belong to us, but to the Peruvian Government, who allowed us to take them out of the country on condition that they be returned in eighteen months.” t d i i ht th ” “the Peruvian Government will probably object to such an arrangement.” g “The matter has assumed a very large importance in the eyes of the p y Peruvians, who feel that we are trying to rob their country of its treasures.”
  3. 3. UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTION pp2. (below) “They include about twenty fine specimens of trepanning, besides the most remarkable instance of trepanning of t k bl i t ft i f which we have knowledge, namely a skull with five holes. I am almost tempted to let the Preuvians(sic) “whistle for it” () “on the condition that it is to go back to Peru in the near future.” [Handwritten comment: Are you willing?] With kind regards, Faithfully yours, [Signature of Hiram Bingham] Gilbert H Grosvenor Esq H. Grosvenor, Esq., National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
  4. 4. • “Dear Hi: Replying to yours of November 28, I feel that we ought to abide by the letter of our agreement with the Peruvian Government and return all the material that we contracted to return, and I am glad that you share this view with me” (Gilbert H. Grosvenor to Bingham, November 29, 1916. Archives of the NGS)
  5. 5. Resolution Number 1529 Lima, 31 October, 1912 In consideration of the solicitation of Dr D Hiram Bingham, Dr. D. Bingham commissioned by the University of Yale and the National Geographic Society of the USA, in which he is asking permit to practice archaeological and osteological studies in the National Territory, and to take out with exclusive destination to these institutions the objects that will be obtained as a result of these explorations. That the explorations and excavation conducted until these dates by Dr. Hiram Bingham commissioned by the above mentioned institutions have been subjected strictly to the content of articles Number 5 and 6 of The Supreme Decree of April 27, 1893. What is true is that Article 4 of the second above mentioned Supreme Decree (August 19, 1911) forbids to take out of the Country, objects of archaeological value, it is understood that this decree h th purpose of preventing th i commercial use. thi d has the f ti their il
  6. 6. (Page 2, 1912) …and for this one-time exception, to what has been requested, with the q , objective of conducting scientific studies destined to be of positive benefit for the history of Peru. The following conditions: 1. This permit expires on the first of December, 1912 and after this date, all exploration and excavation will be forbidden, forbidden the authorities have to enforce the terms of this resolution. 2. …a detailed inventory of all the objects that for this purpose will be brought to the city of Cuzco. This Cuzco inventory will be given to the General direction of the Ministry of Public Instruction.
  7. 7. (Page 3, 1912) 4. The government of Peru reserves the Right to claim from Yale University and National Geographic Society of the United States, the return of the unique objects and q j duplicates that have been extracted. Those referred to by Article 10 of the Supreme Decree of August 19, 1911 … as well as a copy of all py studies and reports pertaining to the explorations that have been conducted in the National Territory…
  8. 8. Lima, 27 January 1916 Considering the request made by Elwood C. Erdis, deputy director of scientific Expedition directed by Dr.Hiram Bingham, and organized under the sponsorship of Yale University and of the National Geographic Society of New York, by which they are requesting authority to export, with destination to the above mentioned Institutions, seventy four boxes containing archaeological objects extracted in the Department of Cuzco between the years 1914 a d 1915; 9 and 9 5; It is resolved: 1. To authorize Mr. Elwood C. Erdis so that, with destination to the scientific Institutions above mentioned to export p from (the port of) Callao, the seventy four boxes which are actually in one of the deposits of the museum. 2. Yale University and the National Geographic Society are obliged to return within eighteen months, starting from this date, the objects permitted to be exported, having also to give to the Ministry of Instruction, the studies that will have been conducted on those objects as well as the photographs…
  9. 9. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act • NAGPRA, Public Law 101-601-Nov.16,1990 101 601 Nov 16 1990 • Burial sites •CCultural affiliation ff • Associated funerary objects • Sacred objects j • Cultural patrimony
  10. 10. REPATRIATION (25 USC 3005) • (a) repatriation of Native American human remains and objects possessed or controlled by Federal Agencies and Museums- • (1) If, pursuant to section 5, the cultural affiliation of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects….is established, then the Federal agency or museum, upon the request of a known lineal descendant of the Native American or of the tribe or organization and pursuant to subsections (b) and (e) of this section, shall expeditiously return such remains and associated funerary objects
  11. 11. • In August 2007, the Getty reaches an agreement with Italy over a number of objects in the museum’s collection • In 2006, the Metropolitan Museum of Art reaches an agreement with the Italian Mi i h I li Ministry of C l f Culture over 21 objects • In 2005 the Museum of Fine Arts 2005, in Boston, returns objects to the Italian Minister of Culture and pledges t d ld to develop partnership l t hi
  12. 12. • “The return of the works from the Gettyy is the latest stage in an aggressive campaign by various countries, including Italy d Greece, t pressure i l di It l and G to museums and private collectors to return artifacts looted from their territories. Besides the Getty and the Met, Italy has struck a deal with Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts to return disputed treasures” (Herald Tribune, oct. 2007) t
  13. 13. Conclusions • There has never been any doubt that the artifacts belong to and come from Peru, Machu Picchu • It is to date, the greatest icon of national f cultural identity for Peruvian citizens across the board regardless of ethnicity class and board, ethnicity, gender. • These facts has been consistently recognized by Bingham, Grosvenor and G. Peabody Day • There is an extensive and detailed correspondence between Bingham and the NGS that proves their concerns about returning the materials to Peru in
  14. 14. Conclusions … • The contractual agreements and Supreme g p Resolutions from Peru’s Government, through the Ministry of Instruction, are very g y , y clear about the conditions of this exceptional loan and indicate exact date of p return • Resolution Number 1529, dated October 31, 1912, from the Ministry of Instruccion, Lima • A permit is issued to the Expedition on January 27 1916 by the same authority in 27, 1916, Lima, allowing the shipping of 74 boxes to be returned within 18 months
  15. 15. • There has been numerous claims from the Peruvian Government to request the return of the artifacts (starting 1918, 1920) • In 2001, the Government of President Toledo starts negotiating for the unconditional return of all artifacts removed as a result of all of the expeditions. During three years, there will be direct correspondence and meetings between the Peruvian Embassy in DC and Yale administration • MOU signed in September 14, 2007 at Yale, between Yale 14 Yale administration and the new Government leads to much discontent and questioning from prominent Peruvian intellectuals • Bingham did not start research until many years after the boxes are deposited at Yale, the boxes have changed place, making it difficult to identify correctly the products of the respective expeditions y y p p p (Bingham actually has G. Peabody request to Peru an additional time extension till Jan,1, 1922)
  16. 16. • After all that…what are we fighting about? that what • Why is Yale the only institution that cannot recognize Peru’s ownership over the artifacts Peru s and state that it is Peru’s undisputed patrimony? • Why not make a gracious g y g gesture instead, in , compensation for so many years of trust in the name of cooperation for the advancement of science? • Why the reluctance to send back the Machu Picchu artifacts immediately and unconditionally? • Why not reach a reasonable agreement based y g on the facts that the artifacts belong solely to peru and are to be returned unconditionally, instead of going to a legal battle?
  17. 17. www.elianekarptoledo.com www elianekarptoledo com