The Ownership of God: The Question of Religious Artifacts and Where They Belong

According to the Peruvian General Law on Cultural Patrimony No. 28296, all Peruvian artifacts, paintings, ceramics and even human remains from the pre-Colombian/pre-Hispanic, colonial, viceregal, and republic periods are part of the country’s property and must be returned to Peru upon their proper identification. The law was primarily created due to the severe cases of looting found within and outside of the country. For the Peruvian government this law is necessary to reclaim stolen objects that are considered prime cultural riches of the country. 

Around late 2016 and early 2017, the Peruvian Ministry of Culture with the assistance of the American FBI came to the realization that three stolen paintings from Cusco, Peru were in Miami, Florida. More specifically, the investigation located all three paintings on the grounds of Corpus Christi Church. The church has been part of the community of Allapattah, a small city in Miami, since 1941, and over the last two decades has provided not only a place of worship but also larger cultural experiences for Latin American immigrants all over Miami. In late 2019, the Ministry of Culture and FBI came into contact with Corpus Christi and communicated their suspicion that these three colonial paintings were located within their recent architectural expansion. This launched a thorough investigation for the stolen paintings where it was later determined that the paintings in fact were the ones reported missing from Peru.  Upon the extraction of these three paintings, the parish community not only felt jilted but greatly questioned why the paintings could not stay with Corpus Christi especially considering that a majority of practitioners of the church were Peruvian citizens. This situation highlights the significance of religious art in diaspora communities, and the greater question of what defines cultural patrimony among Peruvian citizens living outside of the country. 

These paintings have been collectively missing from the 1970s to the 1980s from their original home churches in different regions of Cusco, Peru. During this time, it should be noted that due to extreme political and economic dysfunctions, looting and theft were at an all time high. Many colonial churches especially in smaller communities are not under much security, which would allow for these paintings to be easily removed and promptly sold to a buyer that is willing and wanting. The first painting, The Birth of the Virgin Mary, is believed to have been taken from a church from the Ollantaytambo region of Cusco, but the written reports do not mention the name of the specific church. The second painting, The Marriage of the Virgin (or Betrothal), is also from Cusco, but in this case, there is no information about which region or church either. The last painting, The Immaculate Conception, is believed to come from the Temple of the Ninabamba, a region in which the Immaculate Conception is the patron saint and celebrated through an annual procession among other important Catholic celebrations.  

Out of the three stolen paintings, La Merced Chapel only had the Immaculate Conception on display, framed as a main altarpiece. The other two paintings were kept in storage within the grounds of the chapel. The Marriage of the Virgin is framed with the intention of going on display and The Birth of the Virgin Mary is on a canvas but without a frame. This could be for multiple reasons, both creative and religious. The image of the Immaculate Conception is not only large and beautifully preserved, but more significantly it is recognizable since her image is a patron saint throughout different regions of Latin America, which would make sense to have in a chapel that emphasizes the visibility of diaspora communities. 

The two great questions of this situation are how and why? How did these three paintings after so many decades arrive in Miami, Florida? And why is Peru interested, after so many decades, to invest time and money into the repatriation of these artworks, among others? For the first question, the city of Miami is right next to the Atlantic Ocean and is a city that is celebrated for its beautiful beaches; the ocean itself is a powerful factor of migration. The ports allow not only for people to arrive on a daily basis, but more significantly the import of stolen material such as colonial artwork. Disguised under the illusion that they are replicas or insignificant, these objects enter the city without a second thought. The second question of why now is slightly more complicated. The Peruvian government has long standing issues with upholding political promises, and due to so many events of political injustice and just overall extreme amounts of poverty in the country, constituents are exhausted and angry. Around 2011 to 2012, Peru’s former president, now deceased, Alan Garcia was able to successfully repatriate an entire collection from the Hiram Bingham excavation, despite a tedious lawsuit; Bingham was the man from Yale University who was credited with having discovered Machu Picchu in 1911. It should be noted that although these artifacts are culturally significant, they are not monetarily so. However, this moment was celebrated among Peruvians because the return of an entire collection felt not only exciting, but visible of cultural appreciation. The museum that was developed provided a connection for university students in Cusco and Yale University, which was also highly celebrated and rightfully so. The opportunity for higher education in Peru is not accessible to everyone and this situation provided a positive outcome. 

The three paintings did return to Peru and are no longer in Miami, but instead they returned as part of the Ministry of Culture’s latest campaign, Wasinman Kutispa, a phrase from Peru’s indigenous language of Quechua, which means "returning home." This is not to say that the paintings should have stayed in the chapel in Miami, but if the goal of repatriation is to heal, nurture, and emphasize the damages created by acts of looting and colonization more broadly then using religious imagery for exhibitions should not have been permitted or even considered acceptable.