S.J. Redman: Yale Chooses to Return Peruvian Artifacts (Everybody Likes a Happy Ending)
[Mr. Redman is a graduate student in the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley. He studies American intellectual and cultural history.]
In October of 2004, a unique traveling exhibition arrived at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. The title of the exhibition was Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas. The exhibit, like many other hosted by major natural history museums, featured objects from outside of the host museum’s collection. In this case, the Field Museum hosted the exhibition of artifacts on loan from Yale University’s Peabody Museum. The Field Museum then utilized both its collection and expertise related to the natural history of Peru to add its own artifacts and diagrams to the exhibition. The exhibit proved to be both quite popular amongst Chicagoans and the local media. Shortly after the close of the exhibition in Chicago in 2005, the artifacts continued their high-profile tour around the United States.
I was an intern at the Field Museum of Natural History when the Machu Picchu exhibit arrived. While in Chicago, I worked in the museum’s Department of Anthropology. Though I recognized many of the curatorial faces appearing on diagrams in the exhibition, I had little real contact with them. Typically, I recognized these scholars because I had helped them move some large priceless object (rather than having engaged in some sort of meaningful dialogue). Soon after I left Chicago, the media noticed the story surrounding the controversy related to many of the objects featured in the exhibition. By the following February, I had eagerly written up a short piece for HNN (http://hnn.us/articles/20092.html). In the article, I argued that museums should embrace, rather than resist opportunities for dialogue related to these types of controversies. Historians, as the title implies, could assist museums in finding solutions for problems related to ownership and title. Moreover, historians, unlike legal counsel, could put these situations into their appropriate historical context.
My story on HNN garnered exactly zero comments (I did, however, get a nice e-mail from my mother). Still, I’d love to think that Yale was listening to my monologue. On September 14th, Yale announced that Peruvian representatives had come to an agreement with the university whereby artifacts would be returned to Peru. While Yale would concede the rights to these objects, it would garner a central role in the development of a new Museum and Research Center in Cusco, where the university will serve as an advisor. Yale will also share research rights for the collection with the Peruvian Government. Yale University’s press release rightly calls the agreement, “a new model of international cooperation providing for the collaborative stewardship of cultural and natural treasures.”
Indigenous peoples hoping for the return of objects from outside of their nation of origin should examine this agreement closely. It should inspire all parties to reach a meaningful compromise on these types of issues. While it should provide historians with hope that they might be useful, it will more significantly inspire others to continue their efforts for international repatriation.
In October of 2004, a unique traveling exhibition arrived at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. The title of the exhibition was Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas. The exhibit, like many other hosted by major natural history museums, featured objects from outside of the host museum’s collection. In this case, the Field Museum hosted the exhibition of artifacts on loan from Yale University’s Peabody Museum. The Field Museum then utilized both its collection and expertise related to the natural history of Peru to add its own artifacts and diagrams to the exhibition. The exhibit proved to be both quite popular amongst Chicagoans and the local media. Shortly after the close of the exhibition in Chicago in 2005, the artifacts continued their high-profile tour around the United States.
I was an intern at the Field Museum of Natural History when the Machu Picchu exhibit arrived. While in Chicago, I worked in the museum’s Department of Anthropology. Though I recognized many of the curatorial faces appearing on diagrams in the exhibition, I had little real contact with them. Typically, I recognized these scholars because I had helped them move some large priceless object (rather than having engaged in some sort of meaningful dialogue). Soon after I left Chicago, the media noticed the story surrounding the controversy related to many of the objects featured in the exhibition. By the following February, I had eagerly written up a short piece for HNN (http://hnn.us/articles/20092.html). In the article, I argued that museums should embrace, rather than resist opportunities for dialogue related to these types of controversies. Historians, as the title implies, could assist museums in finding solutions for problems related to ownership and title. Moreover, historians, unlike legal counsel, could put these situations into their appropriate historical context.
My story on HNN garnered exactly zero comments (I did, however, get a nice e-mail from my mother). Still, I’d love to think that Yale was listening to my monologue. On September 14th, Yale announced that Peruvian representatives had come to an agreement with the university whereby artifacts would be returned to Peru. While Yale would concede the rights to these objects, it would garner a central role in the development of a new Museum and Research Center in Cusco, where the university will serve as an advisor. Yale will also share research rights for the collection with the Peruvian Government. Yale University’s press release rightly calls the agreement, “a new model of international cooperation providing for the collaborative stewardship of cultural and natural treasures.”
Indigenous peoples hoping for the return of objects from outside of their nation of origin should examine this agreement closely. It should inspire all parties to reach a meaningful compromise on these types of issues. While it should provide historians with hope that they might be useful, it will more significantly inspire others to continue their efforts for international repatriation.