A Colombian Treasure Hunt
Tertulia, vol. 59
Hola. This is Barbara, your guide to the latest cultural news from the Spanish-speaking world. This week I would like to share some updates on a collection of prehispanic artefacts of the Quimbaya civilisation, known as the Tesoro Quimbaya (Quimbaya treasure). Madrid’s Museo de América hosts a part of this fine collection of ceramic and golden objects. After a long controversy, Colombia has formally asked the Spanish government to restitute the 122 objects this May. The story behind it has little to do with gold-plundering Spanish conquerors who robbed the indigenous people of everything they owned. This story is true, too, but the case of the Quimbaya treasure is quite peculiar. Let me tell you why.
The Origins of the Quimbaya Treasure
The Quimbaya treasure was part of a large group of pottery, textiles, gold, and lithic grave goods looted in 1890 from two Quimbaya burials in La Soledad, in the Department of Quindío, Colombia.
The pieces of gold (made of pure gold or the typical gold and copper alloy called tumbaga) date from between the 4th and 7th centuries. These pieces offer extraordinary insights into Colombia's past and represent one of the greatest discoveries of prehispanic goldsmithing (for further details into the archaeological value of the treasure, see A. Pérez, A. Verde Casanova, A. Gutiérrez Usillos (eds.), El Tesoro Quimbaya, 2016, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) and Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte , Madrid).
Grave robbing («huaquería») was a common practice in 19th-century Colombia and all findings belonged to those who found something. The business case for the grave looters consisted of selling the items to museums or rich private collectors. In August 1891, the Colombian government bought the entire collection, then comprising 433 objects, to take it to a major exhibition being prepared in Madrid for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the Spanish conquerors to America.
A gift to the Spanish Queen Maria Cristina de Habsburgo-Lorena
Already in Spain, the conservative government of Carlos Holguín Mallarino offered the collection to the Spanish crown as a gift. Several historical documents make it clear that this decision was shrouded in secrecy, as the BBC recounts. On 30 June 1893, when the treasure had already been on display in Madrid for eight months, the collection was officially handed over to Queen Maria Cristina de Habsburgo-Lorena. This act was intended to thank the Spanish Crown for its diplomatic support during a border dispute with Venezuela. Unfortunately, I couldn’t locate the original letter Holguín wrote to the queen, so I have to rely on secondary sources like that of the BBC.
The treasure has been on display in the Spanish National Archaeological Museum ever since. In 1941 it became part of the collection of the Museo de Amércia near the Moncloa subway station.
The controversy following the unusual gift
In the current era of decolonising European museums, where restitution is a major topic in ethnological and anthropological discourse, it was only a question of time that the precious Quimbaya treasure also gained attention although it was not acquired by European colonisers. Furthermore, its journey into European hands, as you have just read, rather involves a tale that could have been crafted by García Márquez himself.
In 2017, the Colombian Constitutional Court (Court) ordered the Colombian government to seek the restitution of the 122 golden objects of the Quimbaya people in a judgment issued on October 19, 2017. The court justifies the right to get the objects back with the following reasoning:
Para la época de la entrega de la Colección Quimbaya el ordenamiento constitucional vigente disponía la obligación de celebrar un tratado entre Colombia y España, cuyo objeto debió haber sido la transferencia de aquélla a Madrid, adelantando el debido trámite ante el Congreso, para que éste ejerciera sus competencias y su control político respecto del ejecutivo, otorgando las autorizaciones correspondientes para que se procediera a la transferencia. (Source: https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2017/SU649-17.htm)
Translation: At the time of the delivery of the Quimbaya Collection, the constitutional order at that time required the existence of a treaty between Colombia and Spain. The purpose of this treaty was to transfer the Quimbaya Collection to Madrid, with due process before Congress. This would have enabled the latter to exercise its powers and political control over the executive, granting the corresponding authorisations to proceed with the transfer (translated with DeepL)
The explanation is clear: Since there was no state treaty, Spain has, hence, no right to keep the artefacts in its country. For a detailed explanation of the Court’s ruling, see D. Mejía-Lemos, The “Quimbaya Treasure,” Judgment SU-649/17. American Journal of International Law. 2019;113(1):122-130. doi:10.1017/ajil.2018.106 ).
Neither the government of Juan Manuel Santos nor that of Iván Duque took any action in response to the judgement.
A step towards decolonising Spanish museums?
Finally, with progressive governments in both Colombia and Spain, the moment seemed to be ripe to start the restitution talks. In May 2024, a letter signed by the Colombian Minister of Culture, Juan David Correa, and the Foreign Minister, Luis Gilberto Murillo, argues that returning the pieces to Colombia would affirm the country's cultural sovereignty and would be in line with the policy of «decolonisation of museums» announced by the Spanish government in January. The letter has led to contradictory reactions, which do not run along national lines. There are supporters of the request and opponents in both national camps. The lines tend to rather run along political lines: The political left-wing party Sumar, for example, would like to return the treasure, while the Academia Colombiana de Historia, for example, say there is no reason for it to be returned because ownership was legally transferred.
So, what’s next? Given the delicate political nature of the situation, I expect there will be many friendly talks. There may be some gestures, too, but it is difficult to predict their magnitude, as this is an unusual case that transcends the simple dichotomy of bad colonial looters and good colonized victims. The grave looters were Colombians, the artefacts comprising the treasure the gift of a sovereign nation to another one. Besides legal questions and diplomatic reasoning, what do you think could be the right way to address the issue?
I’ll keep you posted on the case and will have more news for you next month. Anyway, I will make sure to visit the Museo de América next time I go to Madrid to see the treasure of Quimbaya before it might go back to Colombia.