![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the protection of quilombo land and cultural rights in Brazil, through an examination of pottery production in a quilombo community in Maranhão state. Quilombos are village communities with a legally protected status that is similar to that of indigenous peoples in Brazil. In this article, the focus is placed on the production and management of ‘quilombo heritage’ by the potters and the different cultural mediators involved in various stages of this process. In doing so, the article examines what the different parties regard as the major advances achieved and the challenges currently faced in the protection of their cultural rights. The discussion critically explores cultural mediators’ role in promoting, enriching or restricting quilombo cultural production and their different views on heritage. Finally, the article reflects on the need for community participation in the drafting and implementation of cultural heritage policies.
Acknowledgments
A version of this paper was presented at the ‘Fulfilling indigenous peoples’ and minority rights to culture and language’ conference, which took place on 11 October 2018 at the Senate House in London, UK. I would like to thank the organisers and the audience for their questions and feedback. I am especially grateful to Corinne Lennox and Alexandra Xanthaki for their comments and suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Flávio dos Santos Gomes, Mocambos e quilombos: uma história do campesinato negro no Brasil (São Paulo: Claro Enigma, 2015), 11–12.
2 Alfredo W. Berno de Almeida, ‘Quilombos: sematologia face a novas identidades’, in Frechal: Terra de preto. Quilombo reconhecido como reserva extrativista, org. SMDDH, CCNM, AMQF (São Luís: SMDH-PVN/CCN, 1996); Ilka Boaventura Leite, ‘Quilombos: Questões conceituais e normativas’, Etnográfica 4, no. 2 (2000): 333–54; Katerina Hatzikidi, ‘“Ethnic Group” Land Regularisation at the Crossroads: Some Notes on the Challenges Faced by Quilombolas in Brazil’, STAIR: St Antony’s International Review 14, no. 2 (2019): 155–57.
3 José M. Arruti, ‘A emergência dos ‘remanescentes’: Notas para o diálogo entre indígenas e quilombolas’, Mana 3, no. 2 (1997): 7–38; Peter Wade, Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (London: Pluto Press, [1997] 2010).
4 Alfredo W. Berno de Almeida, Os quilombolas e a base de lançamento de foguetes de Alcântara: Laudo antropológico (Brasília: MMA, 2006), 72; Jerônimo de Viveiros, Alcântara no seu passado econômico, social e político, Coleção Documentos Maranhenses no. 17 (São Luís: AML/ALUMAR, [1950] 1999).
5 Almeida, Os quilombolas, 29–31; Luís F. do Rosário Linhares, ‘Terra de preto, terra de Santíssima: Da desagregação dos engenhos à formação do campesinato e suas novas frentes de luta’ (MA thesis., Department of Public Policy, Federal University of Maranhão – UFMA, 1999).
6 Gomes, Quilombos, 154; Hebbe Mattos, ‘Remanescentes de quilombos: Memory of Slavery, Historical Justice, and Citizenship in Contemporary Brazil’, (paper presented at the seventh annual Gilder Lehrman Centre International Conference ‘Repairing the Past: Confronting the Legacies of Slavery, Genocide, and Caste’, Yale University, October 27–29, 2005).
7 A popular dance in Maranhão. It involves a rotational dance and the beating of three, differently sized, drums, together with two wooden sticks struck against the largest of the three drums. All instruments are typically played by men while the dance is typically performed by women. See further: Sérgio Ferretti, Tambor de Crioula: Ritual e espetáculo (São Luís: Comissão Maranhense de Folclore, 2002).
8 A musical performance typical of Itamatatiua. Also known as Bambué. It is performed exclusively by women and involves signing and drum playing. It is associated with the Holy Spirit festival. Variations of Forró de Caixa (each with distinct drum beat or sotaque) are found throughout the Baixada Maranhense region.
9 Katerina Hatzikidi, ‘Moulding quilombola Identities and Ethnic Politics: Understandings and Practices Around “quilombo heritage” in Brazil’, in Art, Representation and Materiality, Online series of the Royal Anthropological Institute, forthcoming.
10 Antonio Arantes, ‘Beyond Tradition: Cultural Mediation in the Safeguard of ICH’, in Final Report of the first ICH-Researchers Forum – The Implementation of UNESCO’s 2003 Convention, Paris (Osaka: International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region – IRCI, 2012a), 22–27.
11 Michael Rowlands and Ferdinand de Jong, ‘Reconsidering Heritage and Memory’, in Reclaiming Heritage: Alternative Imaginaries of Memory in West Africa, eds. M. Rowlands and F. de Jong (Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2007), 16; Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage (London and New York: Routledge, 2006); see also Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa, ‘Introduction’, in Intangible heritage, eds. L. Smith and N. Akagawa (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 1–10.
12 Rowlands and de Jong, ‘Reconsidering Heritage and Memory’, 15.
13 Smith and Akagawa, ‘Introduction’, 5.
14 Rowlands and de Jong, ‘Reconsidering Heritage and Memory’, 16.
15 Michael Herzfeld, The Body Impolitic: Artisans and Artifice in the Global Hierarchy of Value (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2004), 2, 85.
16 Shigeyuki Miyata, ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage Policy in Japan’, in Anthropological Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage, eds. L. Arizpe and C. Amescua, SpringerBriefs in Environment, Security, Development and Peace, Vol. 6 (Heidelberg and London: Springer, 2013), 89.
17 Marilena Vecco, ‘A Definition of Cultural Heritage: From the Tangible to the Intangible’, Journal of Cultural Heritage 11 (2010): 324; Regina Abreu, ‘“Tesouros humanos vivos” ou quando as pessoas transformam-se em patrimônio cultural – notas sobre a experiência francesa de distinção do “mestres da arte”’, in Memória e patrimônio: Ensaios contemporâneos, org. R. Abreu and M. Chagas (Rio de Janeiro: DP&A: Faperj: Unirio, 2003), 63–96.
18 Rodney Harrison and Deborah Rose, ‘Heritage as Social Action’, in Understanding Heritage in Practice, ed. S. West (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2010), 169; Brian J. Graham, Gregory J. Ashworth, and John E. Tunbridge, A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy (London and New York: Arnold Publishers, 2000), 55–62; Smith, Uses of Heritage; Arjun Appadurai, ‘The Globalisation of Archaeology and Heritage: A Discussion with Arjun Appadurai’, in The Heritage Reader, eds. G. Fairclough, J. Schofield, R. Harrison, and J. Jameson (London and New York: Routledge, [2001] 2008), 209–18; Richard Allen, ‘Heritage and Nationalism’, in Understanding the Politics of Heritage, ed. R. Harrison (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press/Milton Keynes: The Open University, 2010), 197–233.
19 Harrison and Rose, ‘Heritage as Social Action’, 164; Stuart Hall, ‘Un-Settling “The Heritage”, Re-Imagining the Post-Nation: Whose Heritage?’, Third Text 13, no. 49 (1999): 3–13; Manuela Carneiro da Cunha, Cultura com aspas (São Paulo: UBU, 2017).
20 Of the 21 properties inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, 7 of them being registered as ‘natural sites’ and 14 as ‘cultural sites’.
21 Renata Nogueira da Silva, ‘O poder da memória e a negociação da memória do patrimônio: Traduções das práticas congadeiras em tempos de vivificação da ideia de cultura’ (MA thesis., Department of Anthropology, University of Brasília, 2012), 110.
22 Harrison and Rose, ‘Heritage as Social Action’, 196.
23 Márcia R. Chuva, Os arquitetos da memória: Sociogênese das práticas de preservação do patrimônio cultural no Brasil–anos 1930–1940 (Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2009).
24 Ibid.
25 Andreza Aruska de Souza Santos, ‘Perceiving and Participating in Cultural Heritage: An Ethnography About the Process of Preservation of Ouro Preto, Brazil’ (Doctoral thesis., Department of Anthropology, University of St Andrews, 2016), 19–20; Márcia R. Chuva, ‘Fundando a nação: A representação de um Brasil barroco, moderno e civilizado’, Revista Topoi 4, no. 7 (2003): 313–33.
26 Osvaldo Martins de Oliveira and Cíntia Beatriz Müller, ‘Considerações finais. Direitos quilombolas: identidade, práticas culturais e território’, in Direitos quilombolas & dever de Estado em 25 anos da Constituição Federal de 1988, ed. O. Martins de Oliveira (Rio de Janeiro: ABA, 2016), 315–26.
27 José M. Arruti, ‘De como a cultura se faz política e vice-versa: Sobre religiões, festas, negritudes e indianidades no Nordeste contemporâneo’ (paper presented at the IV Ciclo Nação e Região – Brasil 500 anos – Experiência e destino, FUNART/UERJ and UENF, October 25–31, 2000, 2002), 12.
28 Chuva, Os arquitetos da memória, 144.
29 Ibid., 149.
30 All excerpts are from the official translation of the 1988 Constitution. Available online at: http://english.tse.jus.br/arquivos/federal-constitution (accessed April 3, 2019). In the original, Article 68 of the ADCT reads: ‘Aos remanescentes das comunidades dos quilombos que estejam ocupando suas terras é reconhecida a propriedade definitiva, devendo o Estado emitir-lhes os títulos respectivos’.
31 See, e.g., David Jacques, ‘The Rise of Cultural Landscapes’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 1, no. 2 (1995): 91–101.
32 For further reading: http://portal.iphan.gov.br/pagina/detalhes/685/ (accessed April 3, 2019).
33 cf. José M. Arruti, ‘Diferenciar, redistribuir, reconhecer: Ensaio de atualização dos debates sobre terra e educação para quilombos’, Cadernos de Campo 20 (2011): 292–93; Oliveira and Müller, ‘Considerações finais. Direitos quilombolas’.
34 Hatzikidi, ‘Moulding quilombola Identities and Ethnic Politics’.
35 The Presidential Decree n. 4.887/2003, inspired by Brazil’s 2002 ratification of the 1989 International Labour Organisation Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal rights, codified ‘self-identification’ (auto-atribuição) as the main requisite for a community to be recognised as a quilombo. This Decree attempted to regulate quilombo land titling by revoking the Decree n. 3.912 of 2001 and doing away with the need to ‘prove’ ethnicity and/or historical continuity. While it did influence the technical reports issued ever since, it was not until February of 2018 that the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) voted in favour of its constitutionality, which had previously been questioned by a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI-3239). See further Hatzikidi, ‘“Ethnic Group” Land Regularisation at the Crossroads, 159–60.
36 Arantes, ‘Beyond Tradition’, 22.
37 See Hatzikidi, ‘Moulding quilombola Identities and Ethnic Politics’.
38 The Selo Quilombos do Brasil is part of the Brazil Quilombola Program (PBQ).
39 Mary L. Kenny, ‘The Contours of Quilombola Identity in the Sertão’, Luso-Brazilian Review 50, no. 1 (2013): 140–64; Anna Losacano, ‘Kilombo do Kioiô: The Use of an artesanato Program as a Program of Social Justice’ (Independent Study Project, SIT Fortaleza, Brazil: Culture, Development and Social Justice, 2008).
40 Hatzikidi, ‘Moulding quilombola Identities and Ethnic Politics’.
41 Santa Maria produces work with the buriti fibre, a type of palm tree found in the region.
42 Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff, Ethnicity, Inc (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2009), 12.
43 Marshall Sahlins, ‘Goodbye to Tristes Tropes: Ethnography in the Context of Modern World History’, The Journal of Modern History 65, no. 1 (1993): 18.
44 Néstor Canclini, ‘Conflictos de identidad en la cultural popular: Bases para una política artesanal en América Latina’, Revista Mexicana de Sociología 43, no. 2 (1981): 715–16.
45 The project was funded by the Elas Fund. It was developed in two periods; first in 2007–2008 and then in 2010 and revolved around different aspects of Itamatatiua’s cultural life, such as Tambor de Crioula and Forró de Caixa, besides pottery. With funds made available by the project, the community also acquired new musical instruments and equipment both for the Centre for Ceramic Production and the guest house (Pousada Santa Teresa).
46 Jonathan Warren, ‘“A Little with God is a Lot”: Popular Religion and Human Security in the Land of the Brazilian Colonels’, in Religion and Human Security: A Global Perspective, eds. J. Wellman and C. Lombardi (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 147.
47 Meredith W. Watts and Simone Linhares Ferro, ‘The Coexistence of Folk and Popular Culture as Vehicles of Social and Historical Activism: Transformation of the Bumba-meu-boi in Northeast Brazil’, The Journal of Popular Culture 45, no. 4 (2012): 896–97.
48 Antonio Arantes, ‘Challenges and Perspectives in Safeguarding Endangered Intangible Cultural Heritage in Developing Countries’ (Conference Report, Creative Value of ICH for Sustainable Development, UNESCO and ICHCAP, 2012b), 067–68.
49 Andreza de Souza Santos, The Politics of Memory: Urban Cultural Heritage in Brazil (London: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2019).
50 Mary Lorena Kenny, ‘Making Heritage in Brazilian quilombos’, Antípoda, no. 12 (2011): 102.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Katerina Hatzikidi
Katerina Hatzikidi is a social anthropologist (PhD, University of Oxford). Her research focuses on human rights, politics and religion, ethnic and religious minorities, and populist movements, with a main area focus on Brazil. She is 2019/20 Swiss Government Excellence Postdoctoral Fellow at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, Associate Fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London, and Research Associate at the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Oxford.