From freedom to return. Restitution and repatriation of cultural objects after subjugation: battles, Brazil, and beyond

When independence is regained, the matters of cultural heritage are oftentimes relegated to the background. While economic reparations are usually more easily enforceable, material ones in the form of cultural objects are typically forgotten, taking a number of years to enforce and requiring complex engagement involving political, diplomatic, publicity and, in certain instances, even illegal actions on behalf of the subjugated country. Thus, the purpose of this article is to take a closer look at such instances of return of cultural heritage, by particularly focusing on the relationship between the matters of return and the questions of identity and collective memory in this respect. In the first part of the article, the more introductory theoretical aspects of the return of cultural objects are analysed, with the author investigating why the return of cultural heritage matters that much and how it may be organised more generally. The second part of the article is devoted specifically to the matters of restitution following armed conflict and in the cases of illicit trafficking. The analysis of various legal theoretical aspects of return of cultural heritage in such instances is illustrated on two case studies, the first related to the restitution of objects looted during World War II and the second to those illegally exported from the Araripe Basin in Brazil. Then, the third part focuses on the question of repatriation of cultural objects removed during the times of colonialism. The legal theoretical analysis is illustrated on two case studies, that of the Tupinambá case to Brazil and its broader impact, demonstrating the Indigenous peoples’ relationship with heritage, and that of the Dundo Museum of Angola, which received objects repatriated thanks to the philanthropic efforts of a singular individual, showing how the lack of available legal solutions motivates innovative approaches to repatriation. Finally, the concluding part sums up the previous research and proposes a new framework for understanding the similarities and differences between restitution and repatriation.