Restoring Mexico’s archaeological heritage to its rightful place

A Mexican delegation is coming to retrieve 84 Mesoamerican axes currently in transit at UdeM, underscoring the need to raise public awareness of the looting of archaeological artifacts.

With its rich pre-Columbian history and huge trove of cultural treasures, Mexico has been a prime target for archaeological looting. Olmec, Aztec, Mayan and other artifacts are scattered around the world in museums and private collections.

As a result of recent awareness campaigns, some of these lost archaeological relics are gradually being returned to Mexico by institutions and private individuals. Last year, for example, the remains of a Mesoamerican child, which had been sitting on a shelf in the Department of Anthropology at Université de Montréal, were sent back to Mexico.

Following the repatriation ceremony, Hector Huerta, the Deputy Consul General of Mexico in Montreal, approached its organizers, Carlos Jacome Hernandez, a visiting researcher at UdeM who is an expert on Mesoamerican bioarchaeology, and Isabelle Ribot, a professor in the Department of Anthropology at UdeM, about organizing another event: the repatriation of 84 Mesoamerican axes that had been in the possession of a Canadian citizen. These artifacts will be returned to Mexico in an official ceremony at Université de Montréal on October 10.

From the Aztecs to modern-day looters: A long history of plunder

The looting of archaeological artifacts in Mexico predates the arrival of Europeans. “Long before the coming of European colonizers, precious objects were highly sought after,” Hernandez explained. “The Aztecs, for example, explored ancient sites such as Teotihuacán not for scientific purposes but to take their treasures and legitimize certain myths.” This quest for valuable artifacts intensified with European colonization, particularly with the discovery of gold-bearing objects.

One emblematic example is Moctezuma’s headdress, a unique piece made of quetzal feathers, now housed in the Weltmuseum in Vienna. “Some say it was a gift from Moctezuma to Cortes,” said Hernandez. “The headdress is still in Austria. It is one of many pieces that left Mexico soon after first contact with Europeans and never returned.”

The extent of the looting of Mexico’s cultural treasures is difficult to determine. “Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia officially registers 49,347 archaeological sites. If you plant a tree or move some earth for an archaeological dig, you’re likely to find something!” Hernandez said.

It is not unusual for impoverished farmers to sell what they find to interested buyers. Such looting can reach massive proportions. Hernandez recalls a case from the 1980s in which looters hired locals to carry out more than 70 raids over a period of more than six months, bringing out an immense quantity of archaeological finds.

The main problem with looting, Hernandez pointed out, is that the looters are focused on an object’s aesthetic value and destroy the archaeological context, erasing centuries of cultural history. “All the archaeological value that we treasure as heritage is lost,” he lamented.

The winding road to protecting Mexico’s archaeological heritage

Recognition of the need to protect Mexico’s heritage is relatively recent. It was not until Mexico became a nation and a sense of nationhood emerged that the first laws were passed in 1868. Their purpose was to ban private ownership of archaeological objects but their impact was limited.

At the time, it was common for foreign archaeologists, supported by institutions such as the Carnegie Institute and the University of California, to send artifacts abroad for study and never return them to their place of origin. Within Mexico, artists and intellectuals such as Rufino Tamayo and Diego Rivera also amassed collections of artifacts, which had often been looted and obtained “by chance” from local farmers.

It was not until 1972 that stricter legislation was introduced to protect archaeological monuments and objects. However, complete control has proved elusive. “Today, museums and academic institutions around the world argue that the pieces in their possession left Mexico before 1972, since the laws aren’t retroactive,” Hernandez said. “So some museums have hundreds of items and we can’t demand their return.”

Recently, under the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, there have been calls for stronger heritage protection measures. Thanks to UNESCO conventions that recognize the heritage of nations as part of the common heritage of humanity, more than 10,000 archaeological pieces have been returned to Mexico in recent years.

The regulations have also changed. Researchers must now register the pieces they want to study, specify what will be exported, and undertake to return them within one year after the analysis. For more advanced scientific studies involving invasive testing, such as isotopic analysis or radiocarbon dating, researchers may take a sample but are still required to submit a final report and return the artifacts they borrowed for their studies.

The long process of repatriation

The process of returning artifacts is a lengthy one. “When the university wanted to return a single box containing the remains of the child last year, the procedures took over two years,” recalls Hernandez. Considerable paperwork was involved. Among other things, they had to obtain a feasibility study from a Mexican expert to assess the authenticity and value of the objects, and coordinate with Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH), the government and foreign affairs authorities.

A repatriation request can be made by an institution or a private individual. In the case of the 84 Mesoamerican axes, an individual wanted to return them after loaning them to Princeton University. He contacted the Mexican consulate, which handled the administrative procedures with INAH.

“At that point the legal director sets all the legal procedures in motion,” Hernandez explained. “It’s a rigorous process based on Mexican laws on archaeological heritage and cultural property, as well as various international treaties.” A Mexican archaeologist then validates the archaeological pieces and recommends whether or not they should be returned, based on photographs.

Raising awareness of looting and UdeM’s role

One argument often used to avoid returning Mexican archaeological objects is “I’ve owned this piece since before 1972, so it’s not subject to the law.” Hernandez believes change must come through collective awareness, as well as stricter laws to discourage both looting in Mexico and the purchase of archaeological pieces.

“Looted archaeological heritage is shorn of its cultural value and historical context,” he said. “It becomes just a precious object or a piece of aesthetic value.”

The ceremony at Université de Montréal for the return of the 84 Mesoamerican axes is intended to remind people of their true cultural value and raise public awareness. “We want to encourage people to stop buying archaeological artifacts, which, unfortunately, are still too easy to acquire today,” Hernandez said.

Christina Halperin, an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology, served as an intermediary in the return of these objects. Through this process, the university is helping to restore the meaning of the artifacts.

“As an expert, she won’t just talk about their aesthetic value; she will place them in their historical context and explain how they were used,” said Hernandez. “As an anthropology department, we have an important academic role to play. We can help put these objects back into their cultural context, and then these pieces, which belong to the Mexican people, can be returned with that knowledge.”

Collection of 84 stone axes returned

According to Halperin, “These green stone axes were made and used mainly during the Preclassic period, between 2000 BCE and 300 CE. They were often offered for the construction of public plazas and monuments at Olmec sites and in other regions of Mesoamerica.”

The axes were used for practical tasks such as chopping wood and clearing fields, and also had strong symbolic value. Their elongated triangular shape evoked ears of corn, and they were associated with maize deities and fertility. They also served as currency and trade items over long distances, indicating extensive interregional relations. Jade and green stone axes have been found as far away as Costa Rica.