Machu Picchu

From 1912 to 1915, an explorer representing Yale University in Connecticut named Hiram Bingham III was busy researching and excavating ancient artifacts from the forgotten Inca civilization of Machu Picchu. His work resulted in the discovery of thousands of valuable artifacts which were shown to the world through means such as the National Geographic organization. It was agreed upon by the Peruvian government that the artifacts would be loaned out to Yale in order for more extensive research to be done, but that they would be sent back over to Peru whenever requested by government officials. As time went by, Yale took more and more liberty to act as they pleased with the “borrowed” artifacts. After World War I, they returned a very small portion

of the artifacts, but remained hesitant to send back anything else, stating that the laws of the time period allowed them to retain possession indefinitely. They also released statements declaring that they had much fewer artifacts than what they actually possessed, in an attempt to hide the rest of the valuables from Peru and their government officials. Peru became increasingly frustrated with the lack of compliance that Yale showed for their previous contractual agreement, and the iconic items that were being held in Yale’s custody became symbolic of betrayal and dishonesty to the people of Peru.
As emotions and frustrations escalated, the government of Peru had had enough. In 2008, they filed a lawsuit against Yale University. Yale was not very compliant until legal action was taken, and then negotiations finally began to pick up. Alumni of the university penned letters to their alma mater requesting that they return all of the artifacts to their rightful home and advised them to be straightforward with the Peruvian government, rather than taking the expensive legal route and prolonging the situation further.
After the persuasion of the alumni took effect and the situation was fully analyzed, Yale agreed to have all artifacts sent back to Peru by 2012. They also established an agreement with Peru to keep the collection of artifacts in an academic environment between the university itself and the San Antonio Abad University in Cuzco. The grandson of the explorer who discovered most of the artifacts, David Bingham, said that “keeping the antiquities in a scholarly setting” was the most important factor in the resolve of the situation. If they were left solely to the Peruvian government’s discretion, they may not be properly accounted for and taken care of. After nearly a decade of indirect relations and distrust between Yale and Peru, the situation had finally been successfully resolved in a way where both entities were satisfied.
After Yale recognized that they needed to return the artifacts to Peru, they decided to only send them the a small portion of the collection that was insignificant and not museum-worthy.

However, both the Peruvian government and Yale did agree that Hiram Bigham was legally permitted to excavate Machu Picchu and send the artifacts to Yale for further study. Even in the early 1900s, Yale was considered one of the top institutions for researching, studying and cataloging artifacts. Because of this, Peru could trust that Yale would preserve and protect these pieces during a time when looting was a rampant problem. It was also known for sharing these discoveries with other areas of academia, so their research would be accessible to Peruvian scholars as well. In addition to this, Yale wanted to ensure the safety and preservation of the artifacts for educational purposes, and did not trust the Peruvian

government.
The dispute lies between if Yale permanently owns these artifacts or if they were simply a loan from Peru. Despite the fact that Hiram Bingham and the Peruvian government signed a contract that allowed Peru to keep control over the artifacts, Yale counters this the Peruvian Civil Code and the failure to follow the statute of limitations. The problem with this contract is that is was not strict enough and did not expand on any limitations. Current proceedings from Yale rely on these loopholes and lax statements to try to claim ownership of artifacts that they have had for more than 100 years. This in turn creates a lot of push back from the academic community that states that Yale is being too rigid and disrespectful of the wishes made by the original contract. Because of this, Peru and the international and national academic society could lose future trust and respect with Yale.
The strengths of Yale is that it still maintains a level of professionalism and competence as one of the largest academic institutions while also having many resources available. It is viewed as competent, credible, professional and scholarly. It has a far reaching hand in its public relations and communication and is able to keep a sense of seriousness. It’s weakness is that it is seen as being too pretentious and uncaring - that there is no sense of compassion. It can be seen that they are too technical and rigid by using strict rules and loopholes to their own benefit. Additionally, they are viewed as caring more about maximizing their efforts and accomplishments. Yale has the opportunity to capitalize on is prestige and financial standing to right the wrongs. Yale also has the opportunity to use its wide range of resources and knowledge to resolve and help any issues. It can help Peru establish the museum partnership as another reputable institution. However, some threats are other large institutions ruining the credibility of Yale and taking it’s place as being more respectable and professional. Yale could also lose students, alumni, faculty and staff that no longer want to be part of an this institution. And finally, Yale could no longer trusted with future pieces, artifacts, projects and research.
In this situation, there are multiple audiences for the public relations team to focus on. The primary audience would be the Peruvian government, scholars and citizens. Yale ruined their relationship that they had with the country and its people by going back on the contract that they had created in the 1920s. Peru lost trust and confidence with Yale as a reputable academic institution so Yale needs to restore their relationship. The secondary audience is Yale University and the academic community, particularly students, alumni, faculty, staff, and U.S. public. They no longer view Yale as trustworthy, competent, and empathetic. Yale would need to build back that trust they had for being reverent of the artifacts and their owners.
In order for Yale to reestablish itself as reputable, scholarly, and respectful, the public relations team needs to acknowledge the contents of the original agreement from the 1900s and to return the artifacts back to Peru.

The objectives and goals of their campaign are to regain Yale’s reputation as being a professional and respectful academic institution and to re-establish trust with Peru and the academic community. They would improve Yale University’s reputation through press and news releases. They will also reinforce Yale’s commitment to being credible, professional, and respectable by forming an academic partnership with Peru’s UNSAAC. And finally they will protect themselves from a negative reputation by showing proactive actions to return the artifacts from Machu

Picchu.
At the beginning when this first started becoming an issue back in around 2006-2008, Yale responded with the communication strategies of good intentions, minimization, and denial. On Yale’s online news website they did not release a statement about the issue until 2007 when they stated that they are making an agreement with the Government of Peru on a new conceptual framework for collaboration, with a focus on Machu Picchu. And it was a joint statement by the Government of Peru and Yale stating, “Yale will acknowledge Peru’s title to all the excavated objects including the fragments, bones and specimens from Machu Picchu. Simultaneously, in the spirit of collaboration, Peru will share with Yale rights in the research collection, part of which will remain at Yale as objects of ongoing research.” Here in this statement they are reflecting the qualities of the three communication strategies I stated above by using press released statements on their own university’s news website. Throughout the entire time until this case was resolved whenever Yale released a statement they spoke about how they were trying to do good things, and how they were trying to give Peru back the artifacts, but they always followed it up with how Yale is still going to have part ownership and access to the artifacts and they will be handled by Yale in the way Yale sees fit. So within these statements there is also the communication strategy of bolstering, making sure Yale is still looked highly upon or damage its reputation.
The situation started to get a little rocky in 2008, Yale was releasing a statement about the issue about once a month. During this time Yale started having major problems with the Government of Peru, they were not completely going along with the agreement Yale was willing to make. Yale kept their statements during this time short and firm, but the statements definitely expressed anger and frustration about the allegations being made against them. They wanted to ensure the public that Yale is not in the wrong here, and that the Government of Peru is being difficult. A quote from a news article from Yale in the fall of 2008 stated, “The collection at Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History was legally excavated and exported by Hiram Bingham in the early 20th Century. Yale's primary interest is to maintain the ability of scholarly institutions and individuals to exhibit and study ancient civilizations, such as the Inca culture, as scholars have been doing with the Peabody Museum collection. Yale has said that if the government of Peru resorts to litigation, it will be fully prepared to defend the case...”. Then when the Government of Peru declined the agreement with Yale they sent out another defensive statement saying, “Yale University is disappointed that the government of Peru has rejected Yale's offers to negotiate a collaborative agreement and instead decided to sue the University to recover archaeological material legally excavated at Machu Picchu nearly a century ago. The claims asserted by Peru are barred by the statute of limitations and would have been without merit even if they had been filed within the legal time period. Yale will defend against it vigorously.” Here with these statements you can clearly see Yale’s PR communication strategies relying heavily on good intentions, minimization, and denial.
In the later years around 2010-present Yale made a shift in their strategies to more compensation and corrective actions. The struggle to make an agreement with the Government of Peru spanned over almost a decade. In the fall of 2010 allegations came up again against Yale and they released a statement as follows, “Yale has made it clear that it is willing to negotiate an amicable resolution with the Government of Peru. Today’s suggestion by Peru’s President and Prime Minister that the government intends to institute criminal charges against Yale and its President as a means of pressuring Yale to settle is an obstacle, not an invitation to settlement. This dispute cannot be resolved by threats…. If the threat is withdrawn, Yale remains prepared to resolve this dispute over the artifacts in a manner that reflects the interests of both parties. Yale respects Peru's interests.” After this some time passed and some agreements were made, and in later years Yale more or less was just updating people about the status of the issue rather than earlier when they were under heat to answer questions and respond. Yale closed the lawsuit by citing an 1852 Peruvian Civil Code, which Yale interpreted as giving full ownership rights to the University, after that they worked to reach an agreement.
A few months after this a statement article in Yale News online website was made in 2010 that they had agreed to return the pieces under the understanding that it will be researched and studied for education in reflection of Yale’s values. Later In February of 2011, Yale and UNSAAC signed an agreement establishing the UNSAAC-Yale International Center for the Study of Machu Picchu and Inca Culture in Cusco. The center is dedicated to the display, conservation and study of the Machu Picchu archaeological collections curated by Yale at the Peabody Museum since their excavation by Bingham in 1912. Richard C. Levin, who was president of Yale at the time said, “...the partnership agreement with UNSAAC fulfills one of Yale's primary missions — the collection and dissemination of knowledge. This agreement ensures the expanded accessibility of these Machu Picchu collections for research and public appreciation in their natural context and with the guidance of two great universities." As an example of this compensation and corrective action strategy, Yale organized advanced archaeological workshops during the summers of 2013 and 2014 for the faculty and advanced students of UNSAAC's archaeology program.
An overall evaluation of Yale’s PR strategies and tactics would be that Yale’s reputation in the United States remained fairly well, if not the same, because Yale was sure to make everything seem under control to the public eye. But as for the overall outcome of the situation from the other side of the issue, from the Government of Peru and the people of Peru, they feel completely different towards Yale on how it was handled. A great example of this is an opinion article written in the New York Times by the former president of Peru’s wife Eliane Karp-Toledo from 2008. She says, “The National Geographic Society, which co-sponsored Bingham’s explorations, has acknowledged that the artifacts were taken on loan and is committed to seeing them returned to Peru. Peru requested the return of everything. Yale refused to accept our first condition: recognition that Peru is the sole owner of the artifacts. The university also would not allow us to conduct an inventory of the pieces, early 2006, it was clear that the university was stalling for time, the university is now brazenly asking to keep a significant part of the collection, for research for an additional 99 years. Yale delayed negotiations with Mr. Toledo.” This is an example of where the United States and our public saw that Yale is doing the best possible thing with these artifacts and they were giving the artifacts back, but the people of Peru saw it totally different. The people of Peru saw this as an act of symbolism, and really distrusted the United States and Yale. Concluding on the strategies overall they were successful in the United States but not in Peru. Overall outcome is that Yale and the Government of Peru did make an agreement, and now as time has progressed Yale and Peru have maintained a relationship over the artifacts by encouraging education within Peru and through the university.