Who Owns, Who Decides and Why Not Us? The Debate on the Ownership of Archaeological Heritage

Old Questions, New Solutions

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12797/SAAC.17.2013.17.33

Keywords:

Elgin Marbles, Machu Picchu collection, heritage, Greece, Peru

Abstract

In this very short article, two cases relating to the restitution of archaeological heritage will be presented. Political, ideological and moral issues will be deliberated alongside the problem of human rights and the recommendations of the UNESCO Conventions (1970; 1972). The first is the well-known and still unresolved discussion between the Greek government and representatives of the British Museum over the return of the ‘Elgin Marbles’. This debate, which has been ongoing for many years, has not yet to reach a satisfactory conclusion and the economic and political crisis that Greece has been experiencing over recent years has not aided the Greek case. The second is the probably lesser-known debate between the Peruvian government and representatives of Yale University in New Haven (USA) concerning the return of artifacts from the ‘Machu Picchu collection’, which were taken out of the Republic of Peru by the team of the American professor, Hiram Bingham, one hundred years ago. It is an unusual case, since the right to possession and access to national cultural heritage was eventually respected and the collection of exported artifacts returned.

PlumX Metrics of this article

References

Ávalos de Matos R. and Ravines R. 1974. Las antigüedades peruanas y su protección legal. In R. Ávalos de Matos and L. E. Valcárcel (eds), Revista del Museo Nacional 40, 363-458. Lima.

Bingham A. 1989. Portrait of an Explorer. Hiram Bingham, Discoverer of Machu Picchu. Ames.

Bingham H. 1915. The story of Machu Picchu. National Geographic Magazine 27, 172-217.

El Comercio 1914. Noticias. 28 de Mayo, 3. Cusco.

El Comercio 2008. La UNESCO apoya al Perú para acceder a piezas de Machu Picchu en poder de Yale. 4 de Mayo, a8. Lima.

El Comercio 2010. Alan García encabezó marcha para que Yale devuelva piezas de Machu Picchu. 5 de Noviembre, a1. Lima.

El Comercio 2011. García sobre piezas de Machu Picchu. 30 de Marzo, a2. Lima.

Gutiérrez de Quintanilla E. 2012 (1916). Primer informe sobre el cargamiento de la Peruvian Expedition. Bolletin de Lima 34/167, 163-168. Lima.

Harrison R. 2010. The politics of heritage. In Harrison R. (ed.), Understanding the Politics of Heritage. New York.

Hitchens Ch. 1997. The Elgin Marbles. Should They be Returned to Greece? London, New York.

Kania M. 2013. Machu Picchu. Między archeologią i polityką. Krakow.

Kobyliński Z. 2009. Własność dziedzictwa kulturowego. Idee – problemy – kontrowersje. Warsaw.

Mould de Pease M. 2003. Machu Picchu y el Código de Etica de la Sociedad de Arqueología Americana. Una invitación al diálogo intercultural. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología CONCYTEC. Lima.

Skeates R. 2004. Debating the Archaeological Heritage. (Duckworth Debates in Archaeology). London.

Downloads

Published

29-12-2013

How to Cite

Kania, Marta. 2013. “Who Owns, Who Decides and Why Not Us? The Debate on the Ownership of Archaeological Heritage: Old Questions, New Solutions”. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilisation 17 (December):371-84. https://doi.org/10.12797/SAAC.17.2013.17.33.

Issue

Section

Articles