Teotihuacan Murals Negotiation: Power, Law & Interests

Balance of Power Between the Parties

Because the Teotihuacan Murals are national artifacts of the Mexican government, Mexico had a legitimate claim to recover them. However, since the murals were legally purchased by Wagner in 1960, the Treaty of Cooperation — introduced in the 1970s — did not apply to the transaction. Applying it retroactively would have created an issue of retrospectivity. Because national laws were in conflict on this point, the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco (FAMSF), which held physical possession of the Teotihuacan Murals, exercised greater legal authority over the matter.

In terms of sources of power, FAMSF held the advantage of possession and the backing of U.S. law and technological resources for preservation and restoration. Mexico, by contrast, held cultural and expert authority: as the murals are part of Mexican heritage, Mexican specialists possessed unique knowledge about how to preserve and restore them authentically. Both of these sources of power shaped the negotiation. FAMSF used its power of possession to formulate the terms of the agreement, while the Mexican side's cultural expertise was incorporated into the restoration process. Under the agreement reached, FAMSF retained the Teotihuacan Murals for three years and restored them with the assistance of Mexican experts.

Overall, FAMSF held the stronger negotiating position, since the murals had entered the United States through legal means. The museum's eventual decision to return the artifacts was voluntary, and this goodwill became the foundation for a mutually beneficial agreement from which FAMSF continues to benefit.

Key Factors Affecting the Negotiation: Legal Pluralism, Culture, and Stakeholders

When the Mexican government learned that the Teotihuacan Murals were held in the United States, it invoked the Treaty of Cooperation, which stipulated that all stolen archaeological, historical, and cultural properties must be returned to their country of origin. An attorney acting on behalf of the Mexican government formally sought the return of the artifacts. However, because the Treaty was signed in the 1970s and Wagner had legally acquired the murals in the 1960s, it could not be applied retroactively. This legal impasse forced the Mexican government to pursue an out-of-court settlement and is a clear example of legal pluralism — a situation in which multiple, sometimes conflicting, legal systems and evolving international norms operate simultaneously. This dynamic significantly favored FAMSF, which retained the stronger legal standing throughout.

A second major factor was cultural difference. The Mexican government did not abandon its claim precisely because the Teotihuacan Murals represent a central part of Mexican cultural heritage. At the same time, FAMSF recognized that the murals generated substantial revenue: California has a large Mexican-American population, and many visitors viewed the murals as a direct connection to their heritage and ancestry. This cultural significance gave the artifacts economic value for both parties.

Third, external stakeholders heavily influenced the negotiation. The Mexican community's deep interest in the murals pressured FAMSF to take Mexico's claims seriously. Meanwhile, FAMSF was also cautious about setting a precedent: as a museum holding artifacts from many countries, it was reluctant to establish a norm of returning cultural property that might affect its broader collection. These competing stakeholder pressures shaped the compromise ultimately reached by the two parties.