Yale must return all artifacts from Machu Picchu unconditionally based on the following evidence: agreements made with the Peruvian government in 1912 and 1916 required Yale to return materials within 18 months for scientific study purposes only and acknowledged Peru's ownership; Peru has made numerous requests since 1918 for their return as the artifacts are of significant cultural importance; returning them would be a gracious gesture after over 100 years and avoid a potential legal battle given the clear evidence that Yale is not the rightful owner.

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. 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. 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. • “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)

6. 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

7. (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.

8. (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…

9. 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…

10. 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

11. 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

12. • 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

13. • “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

14. 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

15. 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

16. • 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)

17. • 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?

18. www.elianekarptoledo.com
www elianekarptoledo com