Yale V. Peru

History and Introduction

Almost 100 years ago, Yale university professor and explorer Hiram Bingham III became the recipient of a National Geographic Society archeological grant, one of the first of its kind, and excavated a number of culturally valuable Inca artifacts from Machu Picchu in Peru. He made several expeditions to the site between the years of 1911 and 1951.1 This region which lies in the proximity of Cuzco, Peru is regarded as one of the major remains in the Americas. The expedition and discoveries made during this period were highly relevant for the people of Peru as well as for the team from Yale that carried out the mission. The possession and the use of these artifacts during the past century has turned into one of the most complex disputes over national sovereign property by large museums or institutions. Many decades after the discovery, Yale University decided to set up an exhibition of most of the artifacts from the Peruvian site that traveled around the United States and attracted almost a million visitors.2 These actions resulted in the irritation of Peruvian officials which led to a series of events that caused a halt in the negotiations over the items. This action resulted in the irritation of Peruvian officials which led to a series of events that caused a halt in the negotiations over the items. First there had been an attempt by both parties to reach an agreement; in less than two years after the first major breakdown in the relationship, they signed memorandum of understanding that stated the intentions and responsibilities of each party.

Nevertheless, tensions escalated as Peru did not see concrete actions, which were expected after the document was signed. One of the major provisions of the memorandum was that Yale would recognize Peru's title in the artifacts.3 The fact that even after the agreement was reached, Yale still did not formally acknowledge this fact has caused fury and dissatisfaction among government officials in Peru. This situation escalated in December 2008 when the negotiations stopped once again, and the government of Peru filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia. However, only recently as of late 2010 had a final agreement been reached. In the lawsuit filed by the government of Peru, their major accusation is summarized at the beginning of the complaint filed in the court:

"Plaintiff Republic of Peru alleged that Defendant Yale University wrongfully, improperly, and fraudulently detained a collection of artifacts, objects, antiquities, and related items that belonged to Peru and its people and are central to the history and heritage of the Peruvian nation. The property in question includes centuries-old Incan materials--mummies, skulls, bones and other human remains, pottery, utensils, ceramics, objects of art and other items--which were allegedly excavated from Cuzco, Machu Picchu, and the surrounding areas by agents of the University.4"

This paper examines the intricacies of such a complex quarrel, evaluates the actions done so far and discusses the solution that has recently arisen as well as alternatives to this solution that both parties could have carried out to reach an alternate solution quicker.

Interests at Play

A negotiation that extends for 98 years has many complications. One of the most challenging issues is the identification of each of the party's interests. The general impression of the people involved in this matter representing both the Government of Peru and Yale University is that the dispute over the archeological objects is simply a conflict of positions. Nevertheless, one could affirm that the real problem actually lies in the differences between the needs, desires and concerns of both parties5. An ideal scenario, which would have helped advance negotiations for coming back to a zone of potential agreement in these negotiations, should have included a careful exploration and scrutiny of each of the party's interests. Each entity should do a careful analysis of these interests in order to identify the areas where elements that are appealing and agreeable to the counterparty can be found.

The nature and purpose of both parties were very different in this case. In the case of Peru, a democratic South American nation, they cared about the preservation of their cultural heritage and recovery of national sovereignty of the group of priceless cultural artifacts that are part of the country's legacy for future generations. In the case of Yale University, they were looking to protect a tradition of excellence in the field of anthropology and retain access to the collection for research together with a fair retribution for the hard work and research that was done in the beginning of the twentieth century following a properly established process. Their official position was communicated as securing the collections conservation, accessibility, security, and availability for scholarly study6.

Moreover, the interests of each party can be segmented into cultural, political, economic, and legal aspects. Many of the particularities of each interest overlap in different areas, but a careful analysis of these could have led to more targeted solutions for reaching an agreement in a timelier and less hostile fashion. The alternative proposed in the memorandum of understanding signed in 2007 included the transfer of legal title of all the pieces to Peru, the establishment of a program of a joint program of research and continued exploration with the proceeds going toward the cost of building a museum and research center in Cuzco, for which Yale would serve as an adviser7. If this agreement had initially been upheld, many of these areas of interest would be served, and the true spirit of collaboration would be achieved.

It seemed that the disagreement and lawsuit by the government of Peru appealed to a different set of interests or a combination that had a different priority as compared to Yale's. The central issue appears to be the legal and physical custody and rights to the collection of artifacts, therefore this issue should have been resolved and implemented first, before trying to work on the details of a future cooperative relationship. If this issue had not been resolved and acted upon before others, the quarrel becomes a matter of who is more powerful8 as evidenced by the lawsuit and ensuing legal process that took place over the course of two years. In this case there appeared to be no apparent alternative to holding the artifacts in either Peru's territory or Yale's museums in the long term; therefore an ideal solution would have included a process where the pieces of such a remarkable civilization in Peru would be available for enjoyment of the public and research by academics.

Not

...