The Inca citadel of Machu Picchu was so hard to get to that the Spanish conquerors never found it. It was built on a mountain that was more than 7,500 feet (2,300 metres) high. But Yale historian Hiram Bingham found it again in 1911. From 1912 to 1915, he led a series of expeditions for the National Geographic Society that led to many archaeological finds that were sent to Yale University, supposedly with the permission of Peru's president, Augusto Leguia.
Now, 90 years later, Peruvian officials want all of those things back. They have told the President of Yale University that a lawsuit is being prepared in case an agreement can't be made.
Even though I find things like this to be very complicated, I think the Peruvian claim should be taken into account. This would not only be a case of historical justice (in 1911 Peruvians authorities were not conscious of the artistic and historical value of the Inca artefacts) but also an uncommon opportunity to end with an old case of "art without context".
In the past, this kind of argument never worked. From the old one made by the Greek government to the British Museum asking for the Elgin marbles to the new one made by the Nigerian government about stolen Nok objects. But keep in mind that the mummy of Pharaoh Ramesses I was just sent back to Egypt by the Michael C. Carlos Museum in Atlanta because it was "historically important." So, I have a question: is the old, smelly corpse of an ancient King more historically important to a country than the artefacts from its most famous heritage city?
